mmmms^mm 


14 


\/^  THE 

THEOLOGICAL   EDUCATOR 


PROFESSOR  ADENEY'S 
THEOLOGY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


NEW  YORK 

THOMAS   WHITTAKER 

2  AND  3,  BIBLE   HOUSE 
1894 


THE    THEOLOGY 


OF  THE 


NEW     TESTAMENT 


BY 

WALTER    F/^'ADENEY,    M.A. 

Professor  0/  Nczu  Testament  Introduction,  History,  and  Exegesis 
New  College,  London 


NEW   YORK 

THOMAS   WHITTAKER 

2  AND  3,  BIBLE  HOUSE 

1894 


CONTENTS 

pAcr 
INTKODUCTION       ...  .         .         .         .       1 

THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  CHRIST  .         .      17-109 

I.    The  Kingdom  of  God 17 

II.     The  Person  of  Christ 26 

III.  The  Revelation  of  God        .        .        .        .42 

IV.  The  Gospel 4'.) 

V.     Redemption       .        .        .        .        .        .        .51) 

VI.     Conditions  of  Membership  in  the  Kingdom    72 


VI 


CONTENTS 


VII.  The  New  Ethics 

VIII.  The  Future      . 


PAGE 

84 


.     99 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  APOSTLES         .         .   110-248 
THE  PRIMITIVE  TYPE: 

I.     The  Early  Preaching      ....  120 

II.     The  Epistle  of  8t.  James        .        .        .  130 

III.     Later  Petrine  Theology        .        .        .141 


TUE  PAULINE  TYPE: 

L    The  Origin  and  Development  of  St. 

Paul's  Theology 152 


II.  Sin         .... 

III.  Jesus  Christ 

IV.  Redemption  . 
V.  The  Christian  Life  . 

VI.  The  Church  and  its  Ordinances 

VIL  The  Future         .... 


.  163 
.  17.5 

.   185 
.  196 

.  206 
.  212 


COXTENTS  vii 

PAGE 

THE    TUEOLOGY    OF    THE    EPISTLE    TO 

THE   HEBREWS 218 

THE  JOHANNINE  TYPE: 

I.    The  Apocalypse 228 

II.    The  Gospel  and  the  Epistles       .        .  235 


INTEODUCTION 

BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY— naturally  divided  into 
two  sections,  the  theology  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  that  of  the  New — may  be  best  described 
by  comparison  with  the  more  familiar  subject  of 
study,  Systematic  Theology,  from  which  it  will  be 
seen  to  differ  in  two  or  three  clearly  marked  features. 
First,  in  its  aim.  It  does  not  attempt  to  state  truth 
absolutely  :  it  seeks  to  elucidate  a  certain  presentation 
of  truth.  Second,  in  its  materials.  These  are  con- 
fined to  the  pages  of  the  Bible;  while  Systematic 
Theology,  even  when  relying  mainly  on  Scripture, 
appeals  to  nature,  conscience,  reason,  experience,  etc., 
for  the  confirmation  of  its  results,  if  not  for  the 
data  of  its  arguments.  Third,  in  its  method.  The 
systematic  theologian  undertakes  to  balance  and 
harmonise  the  truths  of  religion,  in  order  to  show 
their  organic  relationship  in  a  compact  body  of 
Divinity;  the  student  of  Biblical  Theology,  on  the 
other  hand,  proceeds  to  trace  the  development  of 
revelation  as  this  emerges  through  the  successive 
books  of  Scripture,  and  to  compare  the  various  forms 
in  which  its  ideas  are  conceived  by  the  several 
teachers  there  represented.     Thus  it  is  less  ambitious 

I 


2  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

than  Systematic  Theology;  but  then  it  admits  of 
being  more  exact  and  certain.  The  Uterary  and 
historical  study  of  Biblical  Theology  should  precede 
the  more  metaphysical  speculations  of  Systematic 
Theology,  because  no  just  conception  either  of  Judaism 
or  of  Christianity  can  be  obtained  before  we  have 
come  to  perceive  the  thoughts  of  the  inspired  writers 
in  their  original  purity.  Here  we  have  the  stream 
at  its  fountain-head. 

The  nature  of  the  subject  indicates  the  right  order 
of  procedure  for  the  treatment  of  it.  Clearly  the 
familiar  custom  of  starting  with  the  definition  of  a 
doctrine,  and  then  hunting  through  the  Bible  for 
proof-texts,  which  are  often  fragmentary  utterances 
torn  out  of  all  connection  with  their  context  and 
flung  together  regardless  of  their  authorship  and  the 
age  in  which  they  were  written,  is  out  of  place  here. 
We  must  travel  along  the  very  opposite  path  ;  we 
must  not  commence  with  any  formulated  dogma; 
though  we  may  endeavour  to  lead  up  to  doctrine — 
i.e.,  to  whatever  truth  the  lines  of  Scripture  teaching 
may  direct  us  to.  Therefore  we  have  to  map  out 
the  field,  not  according  to  the  relations  of  ideas,  but 
according  to  the  character  and  work  of  the  several 
teachers  and  writers.  Thus,  in  approaching  the 
theology  of  the  New  Testament,  as  one  of  the  two 
branches  of  Biblical  Theology,  we  must  first  consider 
the  fundamental  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ.  Then  it 
will  be  requisite  for  us  to  examine  the  separate 
teachings  of  the  Apostles — St.  James,  St.  Peter,  St. 
Paul,  St.  John,  etc.,  observing  these  in  the  speeches 
and  writings  that  have  come  down  to  us  as  j^ositive 


THE   XEW  TESTAMENT  3 

statements  of  truth,  and  also  considering  them  in 
their  mutual  relations  as  indicative  of  common  agree- 
ment or  of  divergence  between  different  schools  in  the 
early  Church,  as  the  case  may  be.  Further,  this 
study  should  follow  a  chronological  order  as  far  as 
possible,  so  that  we  may  be  able  to  discern  whether 
there  is  any  such  thing  as  a  development  of  doctrine, 
a  progress  and  growth  of  revelation,  in  the  New 
Testament.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  so  great  a  task 
as  is  here  suggested  cannot  be  accomplished  within 
the  limits  of  so  small  a  book  as  this.  All  that  can  be 
attempted  is  to  indicate  thei  outlines  of  the  subject 
and  its  salient  points. 

In  its  origin  Christianity  was  not  a  totally  new 
revelation  of  truth  bursting  on  a  world  absolutely 
ignorant  of  Divine  things.  It  assumed  a  considerable 
knowledge  of  religion  on  the  part  of  the  peojole 
among  whom  it  arose,  and  it  availed  itself  of  that 
knowledge  so  as  to  build  on  a  foundation  already  laid. 
It  was  not  an  accident  that  the  new  teachincr 
appeared  in  the  land  of  Israel,  and  that  its  exponents 
were  Jews.  The  essential  ideas  of  the  Old  Testament 
are  presupposed  in  the  New  Testament.  The  lofty 
Jewish  monotheism,  the  incorporeal  spirituality  and 
the  kingly  supremacy  of  God,  and  the  corresponding 
horror  of  Nature-worship — above  all,  the  holiness  of 
God,  ?.e.,  His  separation  from  impurity — are  all  ideas 
carried  over  from  Judaism  to  Christianity.  The 
blending  of  morality  with  religion,  which  dLstiuguishes 
Christianity  from  most  pagan  cults,  is  also  a  dis- 
tinctive mark  of  Judaism.  The  mercy  of  God  to 
sinners.  His  compassion,  longsuffering,  and  ledteming 


4  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

love,  forgiving  the  penitent  and  rescuing  the  lost,  are 
seen  in  the  Old  Testament.  Lastly,  the  essentially 
Christian  thought  of  a  King  and  Saviour,  sent  by  God 
to  establish  the  kingdom  of  heaven  on  earth,  deliver 
the  needy,  and  finally  judge  the  nations,  comes  down 
from  Old  Testament  prophecy,  and  is  accepted  by 
our  Lord,  who  claims  to  be  this  Saviour  and  King, 
the  long-looked-for  Messiah.  Li  regard  to  all  tliese 
ideas  the  New  Testament  absorbs  and  confirms  the 
highest  thought  of  the  Old  Testament,  while  it  also 
goes  further,  correcting  what  is  narrow  and  material- 
istic in  Judaism,  and  showing  its  own  richer  truth 
against  the  background  of  the  earlier  religion. 

The  relation  of  New  Testament  theology  to  Jewish 
notions  current  at  the  time  of  Christ  is  much  less 
friendly.  Just  as  the  Reformers  carried  religion  back 
from  the  corruptions  of  the  Middle  Ages  nearer  to 
the  primitive  conception  of  it  in  the  New  Testament, 
Jesus  Christ  and  His  Apostles  may  be  said  to  have 
turned  the  thoughts  of  men  to  the  Old  Testament, 
away  from  the  perversions  of  later  Judaism.  Not 
one  of  the  schools  of  theology  prevalent  in  Palestine 
during  our  Lord's  earthly  life  can  be  regarded  as 
in  any  way  the  parent  of  Christianity.  The  most 
popular  was  that  of  the  Pharisees  :  in  its  spiritual 
conception  of  the  nature  of  man,  this  school  found 
more  sympathy  from  Christ  than  that  of  the  worldly 
and  materialistic  Sadducees ;  but  its  slavery  to  puerile 
rabbinical  traditions,  and  its  occupation  with  petty 
externals,  to  the  neglect  of  great  moral  and  religious 
principles,  rendered  it  sterile  of  spiritual  fruit,  and 
roused  the  most  uncompromising  antagonism  on  the 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  5 

part  of  the  new  religion.  Some  have  thought  they 
could  trace  the  oiigin  of  Christianity  in  the  doctrines 
and  practices  of  the  Essenes.  Now,  there  is  much  in 
the  unworldliness,  the  brotherliness,  and  the  passion 
for  purity  characteristic  of  this  humble  sect,  in  its 
lonely  retreat  by  the  Dead  Sea,  that  suggests  to  us 
the  brotherly  love,  the  simple  living,  and  the  pure 
character  of  the  Christian  ideal.  But  the  unpractical 
separation  from  the  world,  the  childishly  scrupulous 
asceticism,  and  the  intense  importance  attached  to 
ceremonial  ablutions  that  marked  the  Essenes,  are 
all  directly  opposite  to  New  Testament  teaching  and 
practice.  Esseiiism  was  essentially  narrow,  sectarian, 
timorous ;  it  could  never  step  forth  into  the  sunlight, 
attack  great  cities,  and  become  a  world-wide  religion. 
Moreover,  historically  there  is  no  observable  connec- 
tion between  this  harmless,  but  unfruitful,  attempt  to 
escape  from  the  evils  of  the  times,  and  the  energetic 
and  victorious  career  of  Christianity.  New  Testament 
theology  may  be  linked  on  to  Old  Testament  theo- 
logy; but  it  cannot  be  attributed  to  the  influences 
of  contemporary  Jewish  thought. 

It  is  to  be  observed,  how^ever,  that  in  two  or  three 
details  New  Testament  teaching  absorbs  and  lepro- 
duces  recently  developed  Jewish  ideas.  First,  the 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection  and  future  judgment, 
w^ith  the  conception  of  the  intermediate  state  in 
Hades,  divided  into  paradise  or  Abraham's  bosom 
on  the  one  side,  and  Gehenna  on  the  other,  grew 
up  and  was  fully  elaborated  subsequent  to  the  Old 
Testament  times,  although  the  germs  of  it  were  in 
the  ancient  Scriptures.     These  teachings  passed  over 


6  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

into  Christianity,  with  certain  important  modifica- 
tions. Then  the  conception  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
with  the  great  work  of  the  Messiah  described  in  the 
so-called  Psalms  of  Solomon  and  in  the  Book  of  Enoch 
represents  a  late  development  of  Messianic  ideas 
subsequent  to  the  close  of  the  prophetic  era.  An 
entirely  new  character  was  given  to  the  thought  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  by  our  Lord  ;  still  the  frame- 
work was  found  in  this  Jewish  thought.  Further, 
the  great  value  attached  to  inspired  Scripture  by 
later  Judaism  is  reflected  in  the  New  Testament 
references  to  the  law  and  the  prophets ;  and  although 
the  Christian  writers  avoided  the  extravagances  of 
the  allegorical  method  of  interpretation  into  which 
not  only  the  philosophising  Alexandrian  Philo  fell, 
but  the  rabbis  of  Palestine  also  in  a  less  degree,  still 
a  tincture  of  something  similar  may  be  detected  occa- 
sionally in  St.  Paul.  Other  points  of  contact  might 
be  adduced,  but  none  of  them  amount  to  evidence 
of  the  vital  connection  of  parent  and  child.  In  spirit 
and  principle  New  Testament  theology  is  not  at  all 
the  outgrowth  of  contemporary  Judaism. 

Whether  the  Christian  doctrines  of  the  Apostles, 
and  especially  those  of  St.  Paul,  may  be  regarded  as 
a  result  of  Greek  thought  modifying  Jewish  traditions 
— as  Pfleiderer  maintains — must  be  considered  later 
on  when  we  are  studying  the  apostolic  writings. 

The  author  of  Ecce  Homo  opens  his  book  with  the 
statement,  "  The  Christian  Church  sprang  from  a 
movement  which  w^as  not  begun  by  Christ."  If  these 
words  refer  to  the  seed  or  root  of  Christianity  they 
go  beyond  the  facts,  for  nothing  could  be  more  absurd 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  7 

than  to  suppose  that  John  the  Baptist,  and  not  Jesus 
Christ,  was  the  founder  of  Christianity.  But  if  they 
rather  refer  to  the  soil  on  which  the  new  religion 
first  appeared,  they  state  an  evident  truth ;  and  even 
as  indicative  of  the  initiation  of  a  new  movement  to 
which  not  the  originator,  but  the  teacher  second  in 
time  gave  the  real  character — and  this  is  what  the 
author  means — they  suggest  a  correct,  though  less 
familiar,  idea.  Christianity  first  emerged  on  the  crest 
of  the  wave  of  a  great  revival  movement  that  pre- 
ceded it  and  prepared  for  it.  Jesus  commenced  His 
public  Hfe  by  taking  the  humble  position  of  a  disciple 
of  John  the  Baptist,  and  His  own  earliest  followers 
were  gathered  from  the  group  of  the  most  intimate 
companions  of  the  wilderness  prophet.  It  is  neces- 
sary, then,  to  see  what  were  John's  teachings, 
especially  in  their  relation  to  Christianity. 

John  the  Baptist  was  a  man  of  the  Old  Dispensa- 
tion— the  last  of  the  prophets.  But  though  he  had 
not  crossed  the  border,  he  stood  on  Pisgah  and  looked 
over  into  the  promised  land.  All  his  preaching  had 
a  forward  glance  in  preparation  for  the  new  age. 
Therefore,  not  only  because  our  record  of  it  is  ^\i'itten 
in  the  Gospels,  but  because  of  its  being  the  message 
of  the  herald  of  the  kingdom,  it  belongs  in  some  degree 
to  New  Testament  theology. 

It  is  not  possible  to  connect  the  Baptist  with  any 
of  the  schools  of  Judaism.  He  was  neither  a  Pharisee, 
nor  a  Sadducee,  nor  an  Essene.  Some  of  his  habits 
may  suggest  his  connection  with  the  third  school. 
His  wilderness  life,  not  so  far  from  their  retreat,  his 
asceticism,  and  his  use  of  water  baptism,  call  to  mind 


8  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

the  similar  customs  of  the  religious  dwellers  by  the 
Dead  Sea,  and  render  it  even  probable  that,  to  some 
extent,  he  purposely  followed  their  example.  On  the 
other  hand,  certain  of  his  habits  seem  almost  designed 
to  mark  his  difference  from  them.  The  Essenes 
made  it  a  religious  duty  to  dress  in  glistening  wliite 
raiment ;  John's  distinctive  clothing  \^as  rough  tent- 
cloth.  They  eschewed  flesh  ;  his  diet,  though  frugal, 
was  not  vegetarian.  They  practised  frequent  ablu- 
tions ;  he  instituted  a  single  baptism.  It  looks  as 
though  his  peculiar  personal  habits  were  rather 
moulded  on  the  pattern  of  the  Hebrew  prophets, 
and  especially  on  that  of  his  great  prototype  Elijah  ; 
and  indeed  that  he  thus  designedly  set  himself  to 
show  his  mission  to  be  that  of  the  forerunner  pre- 
dicted by  Malachi  (Mai.  iv.  5).  At  all  events,  he 
was  successful  in  making  an  impression  of  strength 
and  stern,  self-denying  severity  by  his  singular  de- 
meanour, which  was  so  striking  that  it  even  outlived 
the  memory  of  his  preaching  (see  Luke  vii.  24,  25). 

The  surname  which  was  given  to  John  by  his 
contemporaries  is  an  indication  of  the  importance 
attached  by  them  to  his  practice  of  the  rite  of 
baptism.  If  we  can  trust  to  a  tradition  preserved 
by  Maimonides,  proselytes  from  the  Gentiles  were 
received  into  Judaism  by  baptism  as  well  as  circum  - 
cision  and  sacrificing.  Possibly  John  may  have  been 
familiar  with  this  usage.  If  so,  the  new  end  for 
which  he  employed  the  rite  is  the  more  significant.  In 
calling  Jews  to  be  baptised,  he  treated  them  as  they 
treated  heathen  converts— ^.e.,  he  behaved  to  them  as 
though   they  were  outside  the  covenant.     He  urged 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  9 

them    to   wash    themselves   of  their  ohl  life,  even  if 
this   were   the    life   of  law-observing   Pharisees  (see 
Matt.  iii.  7),*  and  invited  them  to  take  an  initial  step 
in    preparation    for   entrance   into    the    kingdom   of 
heaven.     It   is  not   difficult  to    see  the  meaning  of 
this  baptism.     It  looked  two  ways — backwards  and 
forwards.     (1)    In    relation   to   the  past   it  signified 
repentance.     All  ceremonial  ablutions  are  concerned 
with  the  removal  of  defilements.     But  John's  teach- 
ings in  regard  to  baptism  are  more  profound  than  the 
conceptions  of  his  contemporaries,  many  of  whom  were 
very  rigorous  in   the  practice  of  repeated   washings 
(Mark  vii.  3,  4).     His  i-ite  was  known  as  a  "  baptism  of 
repentance"  (/?a7rrto-/^.a  /xerai-om?,  Mark  i.  4)  and  "  for 
repentance  "   (ets  fxeTdrocav,  Matt.  iii.  11),  i.e.,  a  baptism 
that  pointed  to,  that  urged  to,  and  so  led  to  repent- 
ance.     It   was   also    regarded    as    a   baptism    "  for 
forgiveness   of  sins  "  (cts  acfyecriv  d/xaprtcoi/,  Mark  i.  4). 
The  forgiveness  was  dependent  on  repentance.     Then, 
by  b(ing  performed  once  for  all,  it  signified  not  the 
simple  washing  oil'  of  the  last  chance  fleck  of  defile- 
ment, but  the    thorough   cleansing   of  the   life,   the 
wholesale  repudiation   of   old  ways — a    more  funda- 
mental  repentance    than   that   of  the  ceremonialisb 
with    his   daily   anxiety   about  scruples.     Here  was 
spiiitnal    teaching   which    went    beyond    the    ritual 
bathing  of  the  Essenes  and  the  wvashing  of  hands  and 

*  Maimonides  is  supported  Lj'  Talmud  traditions.  See 
Li<?htfoot,  Hone  Hchraiccp.  on  Matt.  iii.  6.  It  has  been 
objected  that  since  our  evidence  is  later  than  the  origin  of 
Christianity,  the  Jews  may  have  borrowed  from  the  Christians; 
but  is  it  likely  that  they  would  have  adopted  the  most  sig- 
nificant rite  of  the  religion  they  rejected  I 


10  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

culinary  vessels  by  the  Pharisees.  When  the  disciple 
of  John  was  plunged  into  the  rushing  flood  of  the 
Jordan  he  was  taught  to  repent  of  his  whole  past 
life,  as  though  to  let  it  be  carried  right  away  from 
him  by  the  swift  waters  on  their  course  to  the  Dead 
Sea.  (2)  Looking  forward,  baptism  signified  initia- 
tion. This  would  be  taught  by  the  analogy  of 
proselyte-baptism.  Just  as  the  new  convert  gave 
himself  up  to  the  Jewish  faith  and  was  received  into 
the  national  communion,  the  disciple  of  John  dedicated 
himself  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven  and  was  accepted 
as  one  who  should  be  presented  for  membership  when 
that  kingdom  appeared.  It  is  important  to  observe 
that  the  candidate" did  not  baptise  himself.  The  rite 
was  administered  by  the  prophet.  Claiming  a  Divine 
mission,  John  must  have  taught  by  this  action  both 
that  God  expects  repentance  and  that  God  accepts 
penitents  and  receives  those  who  rightly  dedicate 
themselves.  It  is  only  in  the  second  of  these  relations 
that  our  Lord,  whose  innocence  was  recognised  by  the 
Baptist  (Matt.  iii.  14),  could  have  sought  baptism. 
His  desire  to  be  baptised  showed  that  to  Him  the  chief 
meaning  of  this  baptism  of  John  was  prospective — 
that  it  implied  self -dedication  and  initiation. 

What  is  vividly  symbolised  by  his  baptism  is  more 
clearly  explained  by  the  recorded  preaching  of  John. 

In  the  first  place,  the  Baptist  announced  the  ap- 
proach of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  A  vague  impression 
of  its  nearness  was  already  abroad.  But  John  was 
the  first  definitely  to  proclaim  its  immediate  advent. 
"  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand  " — this  is  the 
starting-point  of  all   his  work.     Hausrath  supposes 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  11 

that  he  went  further,  and  writes,  "  Since  the  kingdom 
promised  to  all  Israel  was  at  their  very  doors,  as  was 
everywhere  believed,  and  as  all  signs  presaged,  he,  with 
great,  heroic,  prophetic  resolution,  will  begin  it."  * 
At  all  events,  he  knew  that  it  was  not  enough  calmly 
to  "  wait  for  the  consolation  of  Israel,"  like  Simeon 
and  Anna  (Luke  ii.  25).  These  simple  old  people  in 
the  temple  could  do  little  to  expedite  the  advent  of 
the  kingdom  ;  but  the  energetic  prophet  of  the  wilder- 
ness perceived  that  God  only  waited  for  His  people's 
preparation.  So  he  would  go  even  further  than 
Christ  in  one  way — trying  to  take  the  Idngdom  of 
heaven  "  by  violence,"  as  our  Lord  said  (Matt.  xi.  12) ; 
while  Jesus  showed  by  all  His  teaching  that  it  could 
only  come  silently  and  gradually,  like  the  growth  of 
spring. 

Next,  John  warned  the  Jews  of  the  certain  punish- 
ment of  sin  in  the  advent  of  the  kingdom.  This  was 
an  alarming  anticipation,  quite  alien  to  the  common 
opinion  of  the  unreflecting  multitude.  The  Jews 
generally  seem  to  have  regarded  the  kingdom  of 
God  as  a  Divine  rule  in  the  midst  of  Israel  from 
which  the  chosen  people  w^ould  reap  boundless 
national  prosperity  and  glory,  while  the  Divine  ven- 
geance was  to  be  poured  out  on  the  heads  of  their 
oppressors.  John  declared  that  the  kingdom  would 
bring  judgment  and  punishment  to  Israel.  His  keen 
eye  detected  the  gleam  of  the  axe  already  lying  at  the 
very  root  of  the  tree,  and  only  waiting  for  the  hand 
of  the  Expected  One  to  fell  the  fruitless  trunk.     In 

*  New  Testament  Times:  Time  of  Jesus  (Eng.  Tiaus,), 
vol.  i.,  p.  100. 


1^  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

this  lie  was  following  tlie  ideas  of  ancient  prophecy, 
and  especially  those  of  his  favourite  prophet  Malachi 
(Mai.  ii.  12  ;  iii.  2,  3  ;  iv.  1,  5,  6).  He  revived  the 
often-forgotten  truth  that  God  cannot  be  indifferent 
to  sin  simply  because  on  former  occasions  He  has 
shown  favour  to  the  sinner.  So  absorbed  was  John 
with  the  Yision  of  Judgment  that  he  had  too  little 
perception  of  the  gracious  and  healing  blessings  of 
the  kingdom.  But  he  saw  discrimination  in  judgment. 
Following  Malachi  (iii.  3),  he  announced  that  there 
would  be  a  refiner's  fire  destroying  the  dross,  theieby 
plainly  implying  that  the  precious  metal  would  be- 
saved,  and  a  winnower's  fan  that  spares  the  wheat 
while  scattering  the  chaflt*.  Still,  this  is  only  judgment : 
it  is  not  redemption. 

Based  en  these  two  ideas — the  idea  of  the  advent 
of  the  kingdom  and  the  idea  of  accompanying  judg- 
ment— is  the  practical  obligation  to  repent.  The 
rabbis  had  tanght  that  repentance  must  precede  the 
coming  of  the  Messiah  ;  *  but  apparently  they  had  only 
taught  it  in  theory.  John  urged  this  truth  upon  his 
hearers  with  vehement  earnestness,  declaring  that  it 
could  not  be  evaded  by  any  privilege  of  birth  or  rank. 
Jews  might  plead  that  Abraham  was  their  father ; 
but,  since  God  could  raise  up  children  for  Abraham 
from  the  very  stones  of  the  wilderness  (Luke  iii.  8), 
He  was  not  de23endent  upon  the  existence  of  the 
generation  then  living  for  the  continuance  of  a 
chosen  people.  Scrupulous  Phaiisees,  and  Sadducees, 
though  many  of  them  of  priestly  rank,  were  really  no 
better  than  a  brood  of  vipers,  such  as  the  vermin 
*  Sec  Reynolds,  John  the  Ba2>ti.st,  p.  2-1:0. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  13 

that  might  bo  hirking  among  those  stones  ;  tlierefore 
they  could  expect  no  more  merciful  fate  than  the 
fire  that  burns  out  the  noxious  nest,  unless  their 
characters  were  completely  changed. 

TJien  this  repentance  must  be  no  merely  formal 
performance  of  fasting  in  sackcloth  and  ashes,  but  a 
real  "  change  of  disposition  "  (/xerai/oia),  which  would  be 
evidenced  by  amendment  of  conduct.  "  Bring  forth 
therefore  fruits  worthy  of  repentance  "  (Luke  iii.  8), 
ciied  the  preacher.  When  asked  what  these  fruits 
were  to  be,  he  showed  that  he  was  not  thinking  of 
artificial  penance.  The  lich  must  assist  the  poor; 
the  tax-gatherer  must  be  honest  and  not  oppressive 
—  a  great  sign  of  repentance  in  the  East ;  the  soldier 
must  not  treat  the  people  among  whom  he  is  billeted 
Avith  violence  or  injustice,  neither  must  he  mutiny 
against  orders,  etc.  (vers.   10-14). 

All  this  was  preparatory  for  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah,  whose  approach  John  announced  and  whose 
mission  he  described.  It  has  been  pointed  out  that  the 
special  line  of  ancient  prophecy  followed  by  John  did 
not  refer  to  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  David  as  the 
Messiah.  It  was  a  parallel  stream  of  predictions 
dc  scribing  "  the  day  of  the  Lord  "  and  the  advent  of 
God  to  judgment.  Hence  it  might  seem  that  John 
would  have  looked  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  without 
a  personal  Messiah,  in  a  great  theophany  of  judgment 
If  he  began  his  ministry  with  any  such  expectation 
it  is  plain  that  before  he  ended  it  he  accepted  and 
taught  the  doctrine  of  a  personal  Messiah.  Perhaps 
we  ma}'  lay  it  to  his  credit,  as  a  part  of  his  contribu- 
tion to  the  advance  of  thought,  that  he  was  able  to 


U  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

combine  the  two  currents  of  Hebrew  prophecy,  and  to 
show  that  the  day  of  the  Lord  was  the  day  of  Christ. 

Lastly,  John  predicted  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Thus,  while  proclaiming  that  the  Messiah  would  bring 
judgment,  he  added  one  most  important  and  signifi- 
cant trait  to  the  expected  advent.  The  Messiah  would 
accomplish  a  higher  and  more  effective  baptism  than 
that  of  John,  and  it  was  on  account  of  this  baptism 
that  John  proclaimed  the  incomparable  superiority  of 
the  Coming  One.  He  was  conscious  of  the  imperfec- 
tion of  his  own  baptism,  which  was  joined  to  repent- 
ance, but  not  to  regeneration.  It  did  not  really 
purge  out  the  old  leaven ;  it  could  not  confer  a  new 
life.  The  Christ  would  do  both.  John  associates  fire 
with  the  new  baptism,  saying  "  He  shall  baptise  you 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire"  (Luke  iii.  16). 
These  two  elements  of  the  baptism  seem  to  be  suggestive 
of  the  two  aspects  of  the  rite.  In  regard  to  the  past, 
the  fire  goes  further  than  the  water,  complttely  purging 
out  the  old  evil  from  the  eommunity.  "  The  chafi*  He 
will  burn  up  with  unquenchable  fire"  (ver.  17).  In 
regard  to  the  future,  the  Holy  Spirit  signifies  more 
than  initiation  into  a  new  order.  It  is  the  quickening 
breath  of  a  new  life.  This  is  John's  sole  word  con- 
cerning the  blessedness  of  the  Messianic  era.  It  is 
deeply  significant  that  he  totally  ignored  the  vulgar 
anticipations  of  a  golden  age  of  material  enjoyments, 
and  simply  pointed  to  this  one  magnificent  hope — the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

According  to  the  fourth  Evangelist,  John  came  to 
regard  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  after  he  had  baptised 
Him  (John  i.  33).     This  is  not  inconsistent  with  the 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  15 

fact  that  subsequently  in  the  mehincholy  of  his  weary 
imprisonment,  when  he  had  exchanged  the  free  air  of 
the  wilderness  for  the  stifling  atmosphere  of  the  castle 
dungeon,  the  prophet  was  perplexed  at  the  delay  of 
Jesus  to  declare  Himself  and  take  up  the  expected  work 
of  the  Christ  (Matt.  xi.  2,  3).  A  more  remarkable 
statement  of  the  fourth  Evangelist  is  that  John  pointed 
out  Jesus  as  '•  the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away 
the  sin  of  the  world."  These  words  plainly  suggest, 
not  only  that  Christ  removes  sin,  but  that  He  does 
this  by  being  Himself  a  sacrifice  for  sin.  The  evident 
fact  that  St.  John's  own  reflections  are  mingled  with 
his  reports  of  the  Baptist's  words  in  another  place 
(John  i.  15-18)  has  suggested  a  doubt  whether  it  is 
so  here.  In  regard  to  the  life  of  Christ  we  shall  see 
that  the  fourth  Go.~pel  is  the  Gospel  of  apostolic 
reflections.  Still,  the  words  are  deliberately  ascribed 
to  the  Baptist. 

Note. — This  reference  to  the  fourth  Gospel  raises  the  question 
how  we  are  to  use  that  work  as  a  record  of  the  teaching  of  Christ 
as  well  as  one  of  the  teaching  of  St.  John.  The  consideration  of 
so  difficult  a  subject  cannot  be  brought  within  the  limits  of  a 
note,  and  the  larger  question  of  the  authenticity  of  the  Gospel 
which  lies  behind  it  and  is  the  most  important  question  for 
determining  it  belongs  rather  to  the  field  of  "Nev.-  Testament 
Introduction."  All  that  can  be  done  here  is  to  indicate  the 
grounds  on  which  we  may  proceed.  Now  the  style  of  language 
which  St.  John  employs  is  so  nearly  the  same  when  he  is 
writing  in  his  own  person  as  it  is  when  he  is  writing  in  the 
persons  of  John  the  Baptist  and  of  Christ  that  we  sometimes 
fail  to  detect  any  transition  (e.g.,  John  iii.  10-21)  ;  this  is 
also  the  style  of  the  three  Epistles  of  St.  John ;  but  it  is  not 
the  style  of  the  language  of  Christ  in  the  Synoptics.  These 
facts  strongly  suggest  that  St.  John  has  cast  the  thoughts  of 


IG      THEOLOGY  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

Christ  into  his  own  words,  after  fusing  them  in  the  crucible 
of  his  own  mind.  On  the  other  hand,  no  one  ever  absorbed  the 
spirit  of  our  Lord  so  truly  as  did  the  beloved  disciple.  If  it  is 
the  spirit  that  quickens  while  the  letter  is  but  dead,  we  have 
the  most  valuable  teaching  of  Christ  in  the  fourth  Gospel, 
for  here  we  have  its  very  spirit.  It  is  to  be  noted  also  that 
where  St.  John  is  not  merely  reflecting  on  some  utterance  of 
Christ,  but  plainly  speaking  for  himself,  a  difference  may  be 
observed  between  some  of  his  thoughts  and  those  of  his  reports 
of  our  Lord's  discourses.  Thus  the  *'  Logos  "  doctrine  of  the  pro- 
logue never  appears  in  our  Lord's  utterances  as  these  are  re- 
corded in  the  Gospel,  while  the  picturesque  imagery  of  Christ's 
sayings — the  manna,  the  water,  the  shepherd,  the  door—does 
not  occur  in  passages  which  St.  John  sets  down  as  his  own  com- 
position. Further,  the  most  striking  words  attributed  to  our 
Lord  in  this  Gospel  are  inextricably  interwoven  with  those 
graphic  narratives  which  there  is  a  growing  tendency,  even 
among  critics  who  reject  the  Johannine  authorship  of  the  book, 
to  regard  as  historical.  Lastly,  the  more  lengthy  discourses  are 
not  fluent  orations,  like  the  speeches  in  Thucydides,  such  as  it 
was  customary  for  an  ancient  historian  to  compose  in  order  to 
express  what  he  believed  to  be  the  true  thoughts  of  the  char- 
acters he  was  delineating  ;  but  they  consist  of  a  number  of 
aphorisms  strung  together  like  pearls.  Broken  up  they  do  not 
look  so  unlike  the  short,  pithy  sayings  which  the  Synoptics 
record.  There  is  one  broad  argument  which,  since  it  was 
expounded  by  Scldeiermacher,  has  satisfied  many  who  other- 
wise would  have  been  troubled  by  grave  difficulties  in  this 
matter — viz.,  that  the  Gospel  which  gives  us  the  greatest 
teaching  in  the  world  must  be  genuine  in  its  claim  to  give  us 
the  ideas  of  the  world's  greatest  Teacher.  Considerations  such 
as  these  point  to  the  conviction  that  we  may  use  the  fourth 
Gospel  with  confidence  as  a  source  for  the  teaching  of  our 
Lord.  At  the  same  time  the  peculiar  character  of  St.  John's 
Gospel  and  the  evident  fact  that  the  writer  has  to  some  extent 
allowed  himself  a  free  hand  in  interpreting  the  ideas  of  his 
Master,  render  it  desirable  for  us  to  treat  the  reminiscences  in 
this  work  apart  from  those  of  the  Synoptics. 


THE    TEACHING    OF    JESUS 
CHRIST 


I.    THE   KINGDOM   OF   GOD 

OTJE,  Lord  began  His  public  work  by  repeating 
the  proclamation  which  had  been  the  burden 
of  the  preaching  of  John  the  Baptist :  *•'  The  king- 
dom of  God  is  at  hand:  repent  ye"  (Mark  i.  15). 
Although  it  is  apparent  that  His  great  independent 
mission  soon  led  Him  far  beyond  the  simple  message 
of  His  predecessor,  it  is  equally  clear  that  this 
message  struck  the  keynote  of  all  His  subsequent 
teaching.  The  idea  of  the  Divine  kingdom  was  the 
central  topic  of  His  conversations  and  parables,  and 
the  realisation  of  it  was  the  supreme  end  of  His 
labours.  Therefore  an  exposition  of  the  teaching  of 
Christ  must  begin  here  if  it  is  to  treat  the  subject 
from  some  approach  to  the  standpoint  of  the  Teacher 
Himself. 

The  Greek  word  fiacriXua  is  used  in  two  senses : 

(1)  concretely,  to  signify  a  "kingdom,"  the  territory 

and  people  and   general   body   poHtic  over  which  a 

king  rules ;  and  (2)  abstractly,  meaning  "  kingship," 

17  2 


18  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

or  the  rule  of  a  king.  In  the  New  Testament  the 
first  signification  is  predominant,  but  the  word  some- 
times passes  over  into  the  second  (e.g.,  Luke  xxii.  29  ; 
xxiii.  42).  Thus  we  read  both  of  entering  into  the 
kingdom  of  God  and  of  receiving  the  kingdom  of 
God — the  one  phrase  suggesting  the  realm,  and  the 
other  the  rule.  But,  inasmuch  as  both  these  expres- 
sions occur  in  the  same  sentence  (Mark  x.  15),  the 
two  senses  of  the  word  fSacnXeia  must  be  regarded 
as  blended  together,  and  this  is  a  natural  result 
of  the  new  spiritual  conception  which  our  Lord  has 
given  to  us  of  the  nature  of  the  kingdom.* 

Essentially  the  idea  of  a  kingdom  of  God  is  that  of 
a  theocracy — a  state  in  which  God  rules.  This  con- 
ception was  familiar  to  the  Jews  in  earlier  ages,  and 
was  then  cherished  as  the  ideal  of  national  government 
by  the  choicer  spirits;  so  that  to  the  prophets  the 
human  monarch  was  but  a  vice-roy,  while  Jehovah 
was  the  true  King  of  Israel.     An  attempt  was  made 

*  St.  Matthew  alone  uses  the  expression  "  kingdom  of 
heaven."  In  the  other  Evangelists,  and  everywhere  else  in 
the  New  Testament,  the  alternative  phrase  "kingdom  of  God" 
is  employed.  Subtle  attempts  have  been  made  to  distinguish 
between  the  two  expressions,  but  the  simple  fact  that  tliey 
occur  in  parallel  passages  should  remove  all  doubt  as  to  their 
meaning  precisely  the  same  thing  {e.g.,  compare  Matt.  xiii.  11 
with  Mark  iv.  11).  The  two  expressions  were  used  by  the 
rabbis  as  equivalent.  Verbally,  indeed,  the  phrase  '•  kingdom 
of  heaven "  means  the  kingdom  which  comes  from  heaven 
(suggested  by  Dan.  vii.  13,  14),  and  which  is  therefore  of 
a  heavenly  nature  ;  for  it  is  not  a  New  Testament  usage 
to  employ  the  word  "  Heaven  "  as  a  synonym  for  "  God." 
But  the  same  kingdom  is  thought  of,  whichever  name  is  used 
for  it. 


THE  J^^EW  TESTAMEM'  19 

to  realise  the  idea  in  the  government  of  the  Asmonaean 
princes  who  were  also  priests.  But  this  earthly 
theocracy,  in  the  form  of  a  priest-government,  did 
not  satisfy  the  highest  hopes ;  or  if  there  was  a 
temporary  satisfaction  in  the  glorious  days  of  the 
Maccabees,  in  course  of  time  that  gave  place  to  the 
disappointment  of  the  subjection  of  the  people  under 
a  heathen  yoke.  Still,  the  belief  in  a  future  perfect 
state  wherein  God  would  set  up  His  kingdom  was 
preserved.  Therefore  neither  John  the  Baptist  nor 
Jesus  Christ  had  to  make  the  first  announcement 
that  there  was  to  be  such  a  thing  as  a  kingdom 
of  God.  They  did  not  speak  of  a  kingdom,  they 
preached  about  the  kingdom ;  and  when  they  said 
"  the  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand "  there  is  every 
indication  that  theu'  language  was  intelligible  to  the 
people.  Now,  since  we  cannot  think  that  they  were 
playing  with  words  and  deceiving  their  hearers,  we 
must  perceive  that  they  accepted  the  general  idea 
of  the  kingdom  as  that  was  understood  by  the  Jews. 
This  is  not  so  difficult  to  believe  in  the  case  of  John 
the  Baptist,  who  probably  followed  the  prevalent 
notion  of  a  \isible  monarchy,  although  he  attributed 
to  it  a  higher  moral  character  than  the  people 
generally  conceived ;  but  it  is  remarkable  in  the  case 
of  Jesus  Christ,  because  our  Lord  drew  a  startlingly 
unexpected  picture  of  the  Divine  kingdom.  We  may 
find  the  explanation,  however,  in  the  fact  that  the 
essential  idea  of  the  kingdom  as  this  was  held  by  the 
Jews  was  adopted  and  confirmed  by  Christ.  This 
great,  God-inspired  hope  of  Israel  was  ratified  by  our 
Lord.     The  people  were  taught  to  believe  that  Cod 


20  THE   THEOLOGY  OP 

would  come  and  set  up  His  kingdom  in  the  midst  of 
them  ;  Jesus  declared  that  He  was  commencing  to 
do  so.  We  must  not  let  the  materialistic  degradation 
of  the  notion  among  the  Jews  blind  our  eyes  to  the 
essential  validity  of  the  idea  in 'itself. 

The  Jews  expected  the  great  hope  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  to  be  realised  in  the  establishment  of  an 
earthly  monarchy,  with  the  victorious  deliverance  of 
Israel  from  the  dominion  of  Rome,  and  the  triumphant 
re-establishment  of  the  throne  of  David  at  Jerusalem, 
under  a  human  but  God-appointed  and  preter- 
naturally  endowed  Messiah,  reigning  in  far  brighter 
splendour  than  that  of  the  palmiest  days  of  old, 
bringing  the  heathen  into  subjection,  and  in  particular 
sealing  the  doom  of  the  enemies  of  Israel.  It  has 
been  asserted  that  Jesus  Christ  at  first  adopted  this 
view,  and  expected  to  be  the  Messiah  of  popular 
earthly  grandeur,  and  that  He  only  developed  a  more 
■spiritual  conception  of  the  kingdom  of  God  when  He 
saw  the  impossibility  of  succeeding  in  a  rebellion 
against  the  iron  might  of  the  Roman  Empire.  There 
is  no  evidence  in  support  of  this  assertion.  Although 
doubtless  our  Lord  was  cradled  in  the  prevalent 
notions  of  His  age,  by  the  secret  development  of  His 
own  thought  He  must  have  grown  out  of  them 
before  He  commenced  His  public  ministry,  for  in  no 
single  word  did  He  encourage  those  notions.  All 
that  can  be  said  in  favour  of  the  assertion  is  that 
Jesus  preached  about  "  the  kingdom  of  God,"  and 
that  thus  His  words  would  call  to  mind  the  Jewish 
picture  of  this  kingdom.  But  we  have  seen  that 
He  adopted  the  essential  idea  of  the  kingdom.     He 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  21 

never  abandoned  that  idea  in  His  most  spiritual 
teaching.  On  the  other  hand,  no  single  word  is 
recorded  of  Him  implying  that  He  ever  taught  that 
the  form  of  the  kingdom  would  be  that  of  the 
Jewish  imagination.  His  earliest  known  teachings 
are  devoted  to  the  enlargement,  enrichment,  and 
spiritual  elevation  of  the  idea. 

But  Jesus  not  only  rescued  the  conception  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  from  its  degradation  in  later  Jewish 
thought  to  a  purely  political  embodiment,  and  so 
restored  the  high  moral  and  religious  character  of  the 
great  hope  as  this  was  foreshadowed  by  the  prophets 
— He  not  only  thus  returned  from  the  gross  mate- 
rialism of  His  contemporaries  to  the  lofty  teaching 
of  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah — He  went  much  further, 
and  raised  the  idea  of  the  kingdom  into  an  exalted 
position  it  had  nev^er  before  attained.  In  His  treat- 
ment of  this  subject  He  was  strikingly  and  inspiringly 
original.  Let  us  note  some  of  the  characteristics  of 
the  new  development. 

The  chief  of  these  is  the  spii-itual  nature  of  the 
kingdom.  In  the  teaching  of  our  Lord  the  kingdom 
of  God  is  not  an  external,  earthly  dominion.  It  is 
the  rule  of  God  in  the  hearts  of  His  people.  It 
is  going  too  far  to  say  that  Jesus  held  this  rule 
to  be  solely  individualistic.  The  very  idea  of  a 
kingdom  implies  a  society,  and  our  Lord  expended 
much  of  His  teaching  on  the  social  relations  of  His 
disciples.  Still,  even  in  these  social  relations  He 
represented  tl.em  as  governed  from  within — not  by 
law  and  force  of  magistrates,  but  by  aifections  and 
principles   and   interior    motives.      This  is  tlie  most 


22  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

important  feature  of  our  Lord's  teaching  concerning 
the  kingdom.  It  occasioned  much  perplexity  and 
disappointment  among  His  disciples  even  to  the  last 
{e.g.,  Luke  xxiv.  21 ;  Acts  i.  6) ;  and  it  led  to  His 
utter  rejection  by  the  Jews.  Yet  He  persisted  in 
it  when  He  stood  almost  alone,  without  wavering 
for  a  moment.  Such  a  conception  of  the  kingdom 
involves  certain  important  consequences.  Its  privi- 
leges must  depend  on  moral  and  spiritual  conditions. 
Only  they  can  be  citizens  of  the  kingdom  who  are 
in  the  right  spiritual  state  to  receive  it  (Mark  x.  15). 
Its  limits  cannot  be  territorial.  It  may  have  ad- 
herents anywhere;  even  in  the  most  favoured 
localities  many  may  be  excluded  from  it  (Matt, 
viii.  11,  12).  It  will  not  strike  the  eyes  of  the 
world  by  an  appearance  in  any  external  form,  will 
not  come  "with  observation"  (Luke  xvii.  20). 
Its  blessings  will  be  chiefly  internal — not  power, 
wealth,  luxury,  but  rest  (Matt.  xi.  28),  and  the 
vision  of  God  (v.  8) ;  although  it  will  also  confer 
temporal  advantages,  and  its  meek  citizens  will  inherit 
the  earth  (ver.  5). 

A  very  fresh  and  significant  thought  put  forth  by 
our  Lord  is  that  of  the  gradual  growth  of  the  kingdom. 
He  commenced  by  proclaiming  that  it  was  at  hand. 
Subsequently  He  spoke  of  it  as  already  present, 
saying  on  one  occasion,  "If  I  by  the  finger  of  God 
cast  out  demons,  then  is  the  kingdom  of  God  come 
upon  you  "  (Luke  xi.  20) ;  and  again,  on  being  asked 
by  the  Pharisees  when  the  kingdom  of  God  was  to 
come,  replying  in  the  words,  "  The  kingdom  of  God 
cometh  not  with  observation :  neither  shall  they  say, 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  23 

Lo,  here  !  or,  There  !  for  lo,  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
among  you  "  (Luke  xvii.  20,  21  \*  On  the  other  hand, 
He  spoke  of  the  advent  of  the  kingdom  as  future, 
as  in  His  model  prayer,  saying,  "  Thy  kingdom 
come "  (xi.  2).  The  explanation  of  this  apparent 
self-contradiction  is  not  far  to  seek.  The  kingdom 
did  not  come  fully  at  once  with  a  great  apocalypse 
of  glory,  as  the  Jews  expected.  It  came  not  only 
invisibly  and  secretly,  but  in  a  small  beginning,  like 
a  grain  of  mustard  seed,  or  a  little  leaven ;  and  its 
development  was  gradual.  A  beautiful  parable,  only 
recorded  by  the  second  Evangelist,  illustrates  this  fact 
by  means  of  the  analogy  of  spring  growth  (Mark 
iv.  26-9).  Even  while  the  kingdom  was  in  their 
midst  people  could  only  enter  it  one  by  one,  and 
therefore  its  privileges  were  still  only  possibilities  of  the 
future  among  those  who  lingered  outside  its  borders 
— an  obvious  truth  for  all  time.  Moreover,  the  full 
realisation  of  the  kingdom  was  a  promise  of  the 
future,  awaiting,  as  a  prehminary  condition,  the 
judgments  on  the  Jews  predicted  in  Matt,  xxiv,, 
and  as  a  final  condition  the  complete  evangelisation 
of  the  world. 

The  next  step  is  to  the  idea  of  the  world-wide 
destiny  of  the  kingdom.    This  is  closely  related  to  one 

*  This  interpretation,  rather  than  the  rendering  "  the 
kingdom  of  God  is  within  you,"  seems  preferable  for  two 
reasons  :  (1)  Our  Lord's  words  are  a  reply  to  the  question, 
When  is  the  kingdom  to  come  ?  The  more  natural  answer  is 
to  say  it  is  already  present,  rather  than  to  state  ivJiere  it  is. 
(2)  These  words  were  addressed  to  Pharisees,  The  kingdom 
was  not  within  them  ;  but  it  was  among  them.  The  Greek 
word  tVros  admits  of  either  meaning. 


24  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

of  the  consequences  of  the  first-mentioned  principle, 
that  of  the  spiritual  nature  of  the  kingdom — viz.,  its 
independence  of  geographical  boundaries.  But  Jesus 
went  further.  Not  only  did  He  teach  that  the  gates 
of  the  kingdom  were  open  to  all  mankind ;  He  also 
declared  that  the  kingdom  was  destined  to  spread 
over  tlie  entire  world.  The  leaven  was  to  leaven 
the  whole  meal  (Luke  xiii.  21).  Nothing  is  more 
remarkable  than  the  daring  with  which  One  who 
appeared  as  an  artisan  in  an  obscure  provincial  town 
claimed  to  have  founded  a  kingdom  which  was  to 
conquer  the  world,  with  the  utmost  confidence  that 
never  faltered  at  any  disappointment — except  the 
striking  way  in  which  the  history  of  Christendom 
has  been  verifying  His  words  through  all  the  cen- 
turies. No  doubt  the  Jews  looked  for  a  wide,  if  not 
a  universal  dominion;  but  this  was  to  have  Jerusalem 
for  its  centre,  and  to  be  a  purely  Jewish  empire. 
With   Christ  the  kingdom  is  cosmopolitan. 

Lastly,  our  Lord  unveiled  the  supreme  blessedness 
of  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  specific  boons  promised 
by  Christ  will  fall  to  be  considered  by  themselves 
below.  Here  it  may  be  remarked,  however,  that  the 
kingdom  itself  is  shown  to  be  the  summum  honum. 
While  people  persisted  in  treating  it  as  a  means  to 
earthly,  materialistic  ends,  Jesus  would  have  it  re- 
ceived as  an  end  in  itself — as  treasure  hid  in  a  field, 
as  a  pearl  of  great  price,  to  obtain  which  a  merchant 
sells  all  he  has  (Matt.  xiii.  44-6).  Therefore  our 
Lord  bids  His  disciples  trust  all  other  matters  to 
God,  in  order  to  be  free  to  devote  their  supreme  care 
to  obtaining  the  Idngdom,  and  says,  "  Seek  ye  first  His 


THE   XEW  TESTAMENT  25 

kingdom"  (Matt.  vi.  33).  This  is  the  more  remark- 
able because  it  is  in  striking  contrast  to  John  the 
Baptist's  sombre  picture  of   the  coming  kingdom. 

There  is  a  certain  development  in  our  Lord's 
teaching  concerning  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  but 
this  does  not  follow  the  course  which  might  have 
been  anticipated.  Jesus  began  by  expounding  the 
brightest  pictures  of  the  new  age,  and  in  doing  so 
His  cheerful  gospel  shone  out  like  sunshine  over 
against  John  the  Baptist's  vision  of  judgment.  But 
this  gospel  was  rejected  by  the  great  majority  of 
those  to  whom  it  was  preached.  Then  our  Lord 
changed  His  tone,  and  in  His  later  teaching  de- 
scribed the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  in  judgment 
to  visit  the  sinful  people  with  chastisement  (Matt, 
xxiv.  29-31).  Thus  He  returned,  in  a  measure,  to 
the  message  of  John  the  Baptist,  who  had  spoken 
of  the  winnowing  fan  and  the  axe.  The  utterance  of 
these  darker  truths  may  have  been  occasioned  by  the 
painful  disappointment  of  the  earlier  hopes  of  our 
Lord's  ministry,  but  the  truths  themselves  belong 
to  the  essential  conception  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 
It  is  a  righteous  rule ;  therefore  it  must  bring  judg- 
ment, and  this  must  lead  to  wrath  against  sin  and 
bitter  chastisement.  Yet  all  these  things  are  now 
to  be  considered  in  the  hght  of  the  gospel  of  peace 
which  comes  between  John  the  Baptist  and  the  final 
scenes  of  Christ's  ministry. 

In  the  fourth  Gospel  the  kingdom  of  God  is  only 
twice  referred  to  by  name.  The  first  passage  is  in 
the  convei'sation  with  Nicodemus,  where  Jesus  says, 
"Except  a  man  be  born  from  above,  he  cannot  see  the 


26  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

kingdom  of  God"  (John  iii.  3).  These  words  show 
the  spiritual  character  of  the  kingdom  and  the 
necessity  of  a  riglit  condition  for  participating  in 
its  privileges.  What  is  fresh  to  us  is  the  doctrine 
of  the  new  birth,  which  we  must  consider  later  on. 
The  second  is  that  in  which  Jesus  says  to  Pilate, 
''  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world :  if  My  kingdom 
were  of  this  world,  then  would  My  servants  fight, 
that  I  should  not  be  dehvered  to  the  Jews  :  but  now 
is  My  kingdom  not  from  hence  "  (xviii.  36).  Here, 
before  the  representative  of  Eome,  Jesus  distinctly 
repudiates  the  conventional  Jewish  notion  of  the 
kingdom.  The  specific  point  of  His  words  directs 
attention  »to  its  origin.  It  does  not  come  from  this 
world.  Its  source  is  in  heaven,  in  God.  Therefore 
its  methods  of  government  must  be  sjDiritual,  not 
temporal.  There  is  nothing  in  this  at  all  out  of 
harmony  with  what  we  have  seen  in  the  Synoptics. 
But  the  general  drift  of  the  fourth  Gospel  runs  into 
ideas  of  light,  life,  etc.,  and  thus  the  form  of  thought 
does  not  often  lead  it  to  cross  the  lines  of  the  utter- 
ances in  the  Synoptics  on  the  subject  of  the  kingdom 
of  God.  The  two  passages  referred  to  are  enough, 
however,  to  indicate  that  it  accepts  our  Lord's  views 
of  the  kingdom  in  general  as  these  appear  in  the 
earlier  Gospels. 

II.     THE    PERSON   OF   CHRIST 

The  peculiarity  of  our  Lord's  teaching  about 
Himself  as  this  is  recorded  in  the  Synoptics  is 
that  it  is  presented  in  casual  hints  and  enigmatical 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  27 

phrases,  rather  than  in  the  clear  assertion  of  definite 
claims.  His  shrinking  from  tlie  blaze  of  fame,  which 
is  often  apparent  {e.g.,  Mark  i.  44;  iii.  12;  v.  43; 
vii.  36),  may  be  ascribed  to  modesty.  But  the 
strange  way  in  which  He  refers  to  Himself  cannot 
be  entirely  accounted  for  by  this  graceful  attribute 
of  a  sensitive  nature,  because  at  times  He  makes  the 
most  astounding  assertions  concerning  His  own  rights 
and  prerogatives.  A  further  explanation  may  be  found 
in  the  necessity  of  educating  His  disciples  in  new 
^dews  of  old  hopes.  This  will  be  apparent  if  we  go 
a  little  more  into  detail. 

The  Head  of  the  expected  kingdom  of  God  was 
known  among  the  Jews  in  Hebrew  as  *'  the  Messiah," 
and  in  Greek  as  "  the  Christ,"  i.e.,  "  the  Anointed," 
with  an  evident  reference  to  the  solemn  anointing 
of  a  king  chosen  by  God,  and  of  the  endowment  of 
the  Divine  Spirit  which  that  anointing  represented 
(1  Sam.  xvi.  13).  Thus  the  title  implied  that  the 
predicted  King  would  be  both  chosen  by  God  and  filled 
with  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  descent  of  the  Holy 
Spiiit  upon  our  Lord  in  His  baptism  is  represented 
in  the  Gospels  to  be  this  Divine  designation  of  Jesus 
as  the  Christ  together  with  the  expected  gift  of  the 
Spirit.  Evidently  our  Lord  understood  the  event  in 
this  sense,  and  henceforth  He  shaped  all  His  course 
on  the  ground  that  He  was  the  Christ.  He  never 
repudiated  the  title  when  it  was  offered  to  him ; 
.sometimes  He  unmistakably  claimed  it  (Mark 
x.  47-9  ;  XV.  2). 

On  the  otlier  hand,  He  was  slow  to  publish  it.     He 
did  not  first  take  it  for  Himself ;  it  was  addressed  to 


28  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

Him  by  admiring  followers  before  He  had  sanctioned 
the  use  of  it.  Then,  although  He  never  denied  it, 
He  repeatedly  checked  the  enthusiastic  proclamation 
of  it  by  thoughtless  disciples,  sometimes  with  an 
imperativeness  indicative  of  vexation,  wdiich  showed 
that  He  was  actuated  by  more  decided  motives  than 
the  distaste  for  notoriety  natural  to  a  person 
of  fine  feelings  (e.^.,  Mark  i.  43).*  We  must 
remember  that  His  conception  of  the  Messiahship 
was  necessarily  conditioned  by  His  conception  of 
the  kingdom  of  God.  He  confirmed  the  general 
expectations  of  both ;  but  as  He  modified,  and  even 
revolutionised,  the  nature  of  the  kingdom,  it  was 
necessary  for  Him  to  do  just  the  same  with  the 
characteristics  of  the  King.  To  have  proclaimed 
Himself  Messiah  before  He  had  carefully  instructed 
His  disciples  in  the  spiritual  nature  of  His  kingdom 
would  have  been  to  have  aroused  delusive  expecta- 
tions, and  very  likely  to  have  excited  a  rebellion 
against  Rome,  in  which  His  real  work  would  have 
been  lost,  and  a  flood  of  disasters,  anticipating  the 
horrors  of  the  later  wars  of  the  Jews,  would  have 
swept  over  the  disappointed  nation.  Hence  it  was 
necessary  for  Him  to  discourage  the  popular  ascription 
of  the  Messiahship  at  first,  just  as  it  was  necessary 
for  Him  to  renounce  it  in  His  own  thoughts  once  for 
all  on  the  occasion  of  His  great  temptations  in  the 
wilderness,  where  its  garish  promises  tried  in  vain  to 
fascinate  Him,  until  one  by  one  he  trampled  them 
under  foot  and  emerged  determined  in  heart  to  realise 

*  Observe  the  strong  word  eyU/J/jt^Tjcrd/xevos— "sternly  admon- 
isMn^,"  as  though  with  anger, 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  29 

an  incomparably  more  lofty  ideal,  although  l£e  knew 
this  would  provoke  misapprehension  and  involve  Him 
in  a  life  of  thankless  toil.     First  the  ^disciples  must 
know  His  truth,  His  aim.  His  character  ;  afterwards, 
and  on  the  ground  of  this  knowledge,   it  would  be 
possible  for  them  to  receive  His  Kingship  without 
serious  misunderstandings.     For  this  reason   it  was 
best   that   it  should   be  perceived  by  men  in   their 
meditation   on   the   character   and   work   of   Christ, 
rather  than   baldly   claimed  and    plumply   asserted. 
Besides,  it  was  quite  in  accordance  with  His  whole 
method  of  teaching,  which  was  to  awaken  thought, 
not  to  impart  ready-made  information,  that  our  Lord 
should   wait   for    His   disciples   to    form    their   own 
opinions  of  Him.     Even   then   the   acknowledgment 
by  those  who  were  in  a  measiu'e  trained  to  under- 
stand  His  position  was  not  a  justification   for  im- 
mediately publishing  His  title.     The  knowledge  must 
be  confijied  at  first  to  the  inner  cii'cle  of  those  who 
could  appreciate  it.      The  famous  scene  at  Csesarea 
Philippi  marks  that  stage  in  the  gradual  teaching 
of   the   Apostles   at   which   they   have   come    to   be 
fully  assured  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ.     Yet,  even 
after   receiving    St.    Peter's    clear    confession,    Jesus 
"charged  the  disciples  that  they  should  tell  no  man 
that   He  was  the  Christ"  (Matt.  xvi.  20).     In  the 
very   last   week    of    His   earthly   life    He    suddenly 
adopted    a    totally   different    course ;    by   riding   in 
rustic  triumph  up  to  Jerusalem,  amid  the  unchecked 
applause    of    the    crowd.     He   openly    accepted    the 
Messiahship,  though  in  a  startlingly  lowly  manner. 
But  then  He  knew  that  He  was  riding  to  His  death. 


30  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

By  this  time  His  true  disciples  could  understand  Him 
in  some  measure,  and  it  was  now  too  late  for  harm  to 
come  of  the  delusions  of  the  ignorant.  Thus  it  was 
as  one  who  claimed  to  be  King  of  the  Jews  that 
Jesus  was  tried  before  Pontius  Pilate  (Mark  xv.  2), 
and  crucified  (ver.  26). 

The  title  which  our  Lord  most  frequently  employed 
when  referring  to  Himself  was  "  the  Son  of  Man " 
— a  title  never  used  by  any  of  His  contemporaries  in 
addressing  Him.  What  did  He  mean  by  it  ?  Several 
explanations  have  been  offered.  It  has  been  sug- 
gested that  the  term  indicated  His  human  nature,  in 
contrast  with  His  Divine  nature.  But  this  is  not 
a  New  Testament  thought.  Nobody  doubted  that 
He  was  a  man.  There  were  no  Docetics  in  His  day. 
Some  have  regarded  the  expression  as  a  periphrasis  for 
the  first  person  singular.  But  this  is  not  like  our 
Lord's  natural  style;  He  often  used  the  simple 
pronoun  "I."  Moreover,  the  interpretation  would 
require  "  this  Man,"  or  "  this  Son  of  Man."  Again, 
it  is  said  that  the  words  point  to  the  peculiar  nature 
of  our  Lord's  humanity  as  something  new,  and  not 
in  the  ordinary  line  of  mankind.  Would  Jesus  call 
Himself  Son  of  Man  with  such  an  end  in  view? 
There  is  no  indication  that  He  contemplated  an}'-  such 
lesson.  An  explanation  resembling  that  last  men- 
tioned is  that  the  title  marked  Christ  as  the  ideal  and 
perfect  man.  The  definite  article  rather  favours  this 
notion.  He  is  ''  the  Son  of  Man."  But  the  ancient 
usage  of  the  phrase  is  foreign  to  such  an  explanation ; 
in  the  Old  Testament  the  expression  is  generally 
associated    with  notions  of  weakness  and  lowliness. 


THE   XEW  TESTAMEXT  31 

Then  we  have  the  suggeistion  that  the  title  was 
intended  to  show  that  nothing  human  was  strange  to 
Christ,  in  contrast  with  popular  notions  of  splendour 
connected  \dih.  the  Messiah.  Jesus  was  the  brother 
of  all  men.  This  is  nearer  to  the  teaching  and 
character  of  our  Lord,  but  it  is  not  distinctly  indicated 
in  the  phrase. 

One  thing  is  clear.  The  very  variety  of  the  inter- 
pretations which  have  been  suggested  for  the  title 
shows  that  its  meaning  could  not  be  obvious.  Our 
Lord  seems  to  have  used  it  purposely  as  an  enigma 
to  arouse  questions,  to  stimulate  reflections,  just  as 
He  used  His  parables  as  blinds  for  the  unthinking, 
but  transparent  pictures  for  the  reflective  (Mark  iv. 
11,  12).  We  may  look  for  the  key  in  two  dii'ections  : 
in  the  Old  Testament  usage  of  the  term,  and  in  an 
induction  of  the  instances  in  which  Jesus  employs  it 
Himself. 

In  the  Old  Testament  we  meet  with  it  as  a 
Hebraistic  synonym  for  "  man  "  generally.  But  the 
Hebrew  usage  of  similar  forms  of  speech  leads  us  to 
think  that  it  must  also  be  employed  with  a  distinct 
reference  to  the  characteristics  of  man,  as  we  have  the 
phrases  "  sons  of  thunder  *'  (Mark  iii.  17)  for  passionate 
men,  '•  sons  of  the  evil  one "  (Matt.  xiii.  38)  for 
wicked  men,  etc.  Accordingly  we  find  the  word  used 
in  the  Old  Testament  with  a  special  leaning  to  the 
idea  of  the  weakness  of  man.  This  is  apparent  in 
Ezekiel,  the  writer  who  employs  it  most  frequently 
(e.^.,  Ezek.  ii.  1,  3,  etc.).  But  there  is  one  instance  of 
the  use  of  the  term  in  a  very  difterent  and  most 
striking  cotmection — viz.,  in  Daniel's  prophetic  vision 


32  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

of  the  world -kingdoms.  After  the  four  beasts  there 
comes  one  like  "  a  Son  of  Man "  with  the  clouds  of 
heaven,  and  to  Him  there  is  given  a  kingdom  and  an 
everlasting  dominion  (Dan.  vii.  13,  14).  That  the 
prophecies  of  Daniel  were  familiar  to  our  Lord  and 
were  applied  by  Him  to  Himself  and  His  kingdom  is 
unquestionable  (Mark  xiii.  14,  26).  It  is  therefore 
very  generally  thought  that  He  took  the  title 
*'  Son  of  Man "  with  a  direct  refeience  to  Daniel's 
Messianic  vision.  It  is  in  some  measure  a  con- 
firmation of  this  view  that  the  title  was  used  for 
the  Messiah  in  the  Book  of  Enoch.  Whether  the 
Messianic  portions  of  that  book  were  written  before 
the  time  of  Christ  or  not,  they  could  not  have  been 
familiar  to  our  Lord's  hearers,  who  certainly  did 
not  take  the  title  "  Son  of  Man  "  to  be  equivalent 
to  that  of  "Messiah"  {e.g.,  Matt.  xvi.  13,  14). 
But  our  Lord  seems  to  have  employed  an  obscure 
and  unusual  title  for  the  Messiah,  which  was  at 
the  same  time  too  general  to  be  evidently  Messianic, 
to  suggest  a  new  line  of  thought  in  the  minds  of 
His  disciples.  In  contrast  with  the  four  beasts, 
the  Son  of  Man  appeared  as  greater  in  the  scale 
of  being,  more  gentle  and  humane,  and  outwardly 
more  weak,  though  really  more  powerful.  These 
ideas  were  important  in  the  correction  of  coarse, 
false  Messianic  hopes. 

An  induction  of  the  instances  in  which  our  Lord 
uses  the  title  leads  to  the  same  conclusion.  One  or 
both  of  two  characteristics  are  found  in  all  of  them. 
They  are  all  passages  in  which  Jesus  describes  His 
mission,    His   functions,    or   His    future    work   and 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  35 

destiny ;  *  and  tliey  generally  do  this  with  some 
reference  to  His  present  lowly  estate,  His  poverty 
and  apparent  weakness.  These  two  ideas,  then,  are 
to  be  found  in  the  utterances  about  the  Son  of  M  an : 
the  specifically  INIessianic  work  of  our  Lord,  and  His 
earthly  humiliation — eg.,  the  Son  of  Man  "  has 
authority"  (Mark  ii.  10),  is  ''Lord  of  the  Sabbath" 
(ver.  28),  is  the  Sower  (Matt.  xiii.  37),  will  come  in 
glory  (Mark  viii.  38),  etc. ;  and  on  the  other  hand, 
the  Son  of  Man  "has  not  where  to  lay  His  head" 
(Luke  ix.  58),  "  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but 
to  minister"  (Mark  x.  45),  will  be  set  at  naught 
(viii.  31),  etc. 

Thus  to  thoughtful  hearers  our  Lord's  use  of  the 
title  helps  in  the  correction  of  false  expectancy  and  in 
the  understanding  of  His  true  character  and  mission. 

Jesus  did  not  use  the  title  "  the  Son  of  God  "  inter- 
changeably with  the  name  "  the  Son  of  Man";  but,  like 
the  appellation  "  Messiah  "  or  "  Christ,"  it  was  more 
frequently  given  to  Him  by  others.  On  the  lips  of 
the  high-priest  it  seems  to  be  just  an  honourable 
name  for  the  Messiah,  pointing  to  Divine  recognition 
and  favour  and  close  relations  with  God  to  be  enjoyed 
by  the  expected  King,  but  not  to  the  real  Sonship  in 
nature  and  being  w^hich  Christians  understand  by  the 
phrase  (Matt.  xxvi.  63).  Many  clear  references  to 
Divine  Sonship  in  the  Old  Testament  would  naturally 
lead  to  the  use  of  the  title  for  the  Messiah  by  Jews 
of  later  times  {e.g.,   Psalm   ii.   7;    Ixxxix.  2G).     We 

*  Harnack  has  pointed  out  that  the  title  "  Son  of  Man," 
being  derived  from  Daniel's  vision,  more  especially  suggests 
the  heavenly  origin  of  the  Messiah. 

3 


^ 


U  THE   TBEOLOGY  OF 

cannot  be  sure  that  St.  Peter  had  got   beyond   the 
Jewish  thought  in  his  great  confession  (Matt.  xvi.  16). 
Like  the  more  famiUar  name  of  the  future  King,  this 
was  also  accepted  by  our  Lord  without  question   or 
objection.     But  it  is  evident  that  interpreting  it  by 
His  own  inner  consciousness  of  closest  relation  to  His 
Father  He  saw  more  in  it.     We  may  say  that  while 
there  were   Jews    who    vaguely  regarded   a   certain 
Divine  Sonship  as  an  attribute  of  the  Messiah  and 
dependent  on  the  Messianic  calling,  Jesus  reversed  the 
process,  and  knew  Himself  to  be  the  Messiah  because 
He  was  first  of  all  inwardly  conscious  of  Divine  Son- 
ship.     This  consciousness  emerges  in  the  one  recorded 
utterance  of  His  childhood   (Luke  ii.  49).     He  fre- 
quently speaks  of  God  distinctively  and  emphatically 
as  "  My  Father  "  {e.g.,  Matt.   vii.  21  ;  x.   32  ;  xv.  13, 
etc.) ;  and   although    He   also    often  names  God    to 
His  disciples  as  "  your  Father,"  He  never  uses  the 
expression  "  Our  Father  "  in  such  a  way  as  to  include 
Himself  with  His  disciples  in  a  common  relationship. 
Surely  this  shows  that  His  use  of  the  pronoun  of  the 
first  person  singular  points  to  a  unique  Sonship.     Once 
in  the  Synoptics  He  speaks  of  Himself  as  simply  "  the 
Son,"  after  the  manner  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  with  a 
strange,  solemn  exaltation  of  tone,  and  indicating  a 
peculiar  intimacy  of  knowledge  between  Himself  and 
His  Father  which  no  other  being  enjoys  (Matt.  xi.  27; 
Luke  x.  22). 

It  was  early  noticed  by  His  delighted  hearers  that 
Jesus  "  taught  them  as  having  authority,  and  not 
as  their  scribes"  (Mark  i.  22).  Not  only  was  there 
weight   and   power   in    His   utterances — which    was 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  35 

perhaps  what  the  Evangelists  meant  by  authority — 
but  there  was  also  a  calm  assumption  of  the  right  to 
teach,  even  sometimes  in  opposition  to  the  venerated 
precepts  of  the  law — e.^.,  "  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was 
Siiid,  An  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth  :  but 
I  say  unto  you,  Eesist  not  him  that  is  evil "  (Matt. 
V.  38,  39) ;  and  so  in  other  cases,  where  Jesus  did  not 
hesitate  to  set  aside  the  authority  of  Moses  as  obsolete. 
Then,  while  the  disciples  appealed  to  "  the  Name  "  of 
Christ  in  w^orking  mu-acles,  Jesus  Himself  wrought 
them  on  His  own  authority.  Thus  St.  Peter  said  to 
the  lame  man  at  the  Temple,  "  In  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ  of  Nazareth,  walk  "  (Acts  iii.  6) ;  but  Jesus  said 
to  the  paralytic  at  Capernaum,  "  I  say  unto  thee, 
arise,"  etc.  (Mark  ii.  11).  Next  it  is  to  be  observed  that 
He  claimed  the  right  to  forgive  sins,  and  justified  His 
claim  on  the  ground  that  He  was  the  Son  of  Man, 
when  His  critics  accused  him  of  blasj^hemy  in  putting 
it  forth  (ver.  10).  He  offered  a  gracious  invitation  on 
condition  of  a  personal  relation  with  Himself,  such 
as  we  more  often  meet  with  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  when 
He  called  the  labouring  and  heavy  laden  to  Himself, 
and  promised  them  rest  if  they  would  take  His  yoke 
upon  them,  and  this  immediately  after  speaking  of 
His  close  and  unparalleled  intimacy  with  His  Father 
(Matt.  xi.  27-30).  In  His  parable  of  the  Sheep 
and  the  Goats  He  describes  Himself  as  the  Son  of 
Man  coming  with  attendant  angels,  and  sitting  on  the 
throne  of  His  glory,  while  all  the  nations  are  gathered 
before  Him  for  judgment ;  that  is  to  say,  He  is  to 
come  as  the  Judge  of  all  mankind.  Gentile  as  well  as 
Jewish,   heathen  as  well  as  Chiistian  (xxv.  31,  32). 


36  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

Not  only  do  the  angels  appear  in  His  Messianic  train, 
but  in  another  case  they  are  j^lacecl  between  Him  and 
men  in  the  scale  of  being — so  high  is  His  natural 
existence.  He  says,  "  Of  that  day  or  that  hour 
knoweth  no  one,  not  even  the  angels  in  heaven,  neither 
the  Son,  but  the  Father"  (Mark  xiii.  32).  Here, 
after  referring  to  "no  one,"  Jesus  next  speaks  of  the 
angels,  and  only  then  names  Himself,  immediately 
before  "  the  Father."  He  seems  to  claim  nothing  less 
than  ubiquity  when  He  says,  "  Where  two  or  three 
are  gathered  together  in  My  name,  there  am  I  in 
the  midst  of  them  "  (Matt,  xviii.  20),  and  after  His 
resurrection  He  promises  His  continual  presence  in 
the  Church  (xxviii.  20). 

On  the  other  hand,  He  sets  certain  bounds  to  these 
prerogatives.  He  speaks  of  limitations  to  His  know- 
ledge (Mark  xiii.  32)  and  His  authority  (x.  40); 
He  repudiates  the  idea  of  absolute  goodness,  as 
that  idea  might  be  ascribed  to  God — i.e.,  the  idea 
of  self -originating,  underived  goodness  (x.  18) ;  He 
claims  to  work  His  miracles  by  "  the  Spirit  of  God  " 
(Matt.  xii.  28)  or  "  the  finger  of  God  "  (Luke  xi.  20) ; 
He  says,  "  All  things  have  been  delivered  unto  Me  of 
My  Father"  (Matt.  xi.  27) — owning  to  a  boundless 
heritage,  but  ascribing  this  to  the  gift  of  His  Father ; 
He  confesses  a  divergence  between  His  will  and  that 
of  His  Father  (Mark  xiv.  36) ;  He  prays  in  a  spirit 
of  dependence.  Plainly  these  are  real  limitations; 
but  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  they  are  all  confined 
to  the  lifetime  of  our  Lord  on  earth. 

It   is   with   respect   to   its   representation   of    the 
person  of  Christ  Himself  that  the  Gospel  of  St.  John 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  37 

appears  to  differ  most  widely  from  the  Synoptics. 
In  the  three  first  narratives  our  Lord  seems  to 
a  large  extent  to  retire  behind  His  message,  but  in 
the  later-written  work  He  speaks  very  much  more 
about  Himself.  Then  the  early  reticence  concerning 
His  Messiahship,  and  the  guarded  and  gradual  reve- 
lation of  His  claims,  which  marked  the  Synoptic 
accounts,  here  appear  to  give  place  to  a  more  public 
confession  from  the  beginning ;  so  that  we  miss  the 
slow  development  of  teaching  on  the  subject.  Lastly, 
we  have  lengthy  discourses  instead  of  picturesque 
parables  and  scattered  sayings  embedded  in  incidents. 
Two  or  three  considerations  may  help  us  to  account 
for  these  startling  differences,  in  some  degree  at  least. 
In  the  first  place,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  scenes  of 
the  discourses  in  St.  John  are  as  a  rule  unlike  those 
of  the  Synoptic  sayings.  For  the  most  part,  St.  John 
gives  us  conversations  with  indi\iduals  {e.g.,  with 
Nicodemus,  with  the  Samaritan  woman),  or  with  the 
inner  circle  of  disciples,  in  both  of  which  cases  our 
Lord  might  speak  more  personally  than  in  preaching 
to  the  crowd ;  at  other  times  we  have  reports  of 
arguments  with  unfriendly  critics,  who  would  natu- 
rally force  the  discussion  to  the  question  of  His  own 
claims.  But  there  are  also  instances  of  a  similar 
style  of  teaching  carried  on  in  public  {e.g.,  John  vi.). 
Now  we  must  recollect  that  none  of  the  Evangelists 
attempt  anything  approaching  a  complete  biography 
of  Jesus  Christ.  They  all  give  but  a  few  selected 
scenes  in  their  brief  pamphlets.  St.  John  tells  us 
what  liis  object  was — viz.,  to  lead  to  faith  in  Christ 
(xx.  31).     With  such  an  end  in  view,  it  was  natural 


38  TEE   THEOLOGY  OF 

that  he  should  select  those  reminiscences  which  were 
most  directly  concerned  with  the  person  of  his  Master. 
Therefore,  it  is  only  just  and  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  he  did  not  aim  at  giving  average  specimens  of 
the  words  of  Christ  on  the  whole  round  of  subjects 
treated  by  the  great  Teacher — especially  as  other 
topics  were  represented  by  the  earlier  Gospels,  with 
which  he  was  acquainted.  His  confessed  aim  would 
directly  lead  him  to  gather  up  the  Christological 
discourses  and  arguments.  Still,  all  this  will  not 
wholly  account  for  the  difference  of  style  and  the 
great  increase  of  emphasis  on  the  personal  claims  of 
Christ,  which  stand  forth  as  the  most  marked  and 
original  features  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  Is  it  not 
evident  that  if  St.  John  moulded  the  ideas  which 
he  had  gained  from  Christ  in  the  forms  of  his  own 
meditation,  he  would  be  likely  to  do  this  most  freely 
in  his  treatment  of  thoughts  concerning  the  person 
of  his  Lord,  because  here  his  affections  would  be  most 
warmly  stirred  ?  But  this  only  means  that  if  Christ 
taught  by  His  life  and  character  and  action  as  well 
as  by  His  words,  the  total  impression  of  His  repre- 
sentation of  Himself  in  all  these  varied  ways  is  that 
w^hich  would  be  felt  by  His  most  intimate  and  sym- 
pathetic disciple.  That  is  what  St.  John  gives  us. 
It  is  really  the  most  perfect  self -revelation  of  the 
heart  of  Christ. 

When  we  turn  from  the  question  of  form  to  that 
of  substance,  the  difference  between  St.  John  and  the 
Synoptics  is  kss  striking.  ,  In  the  fourth  Gospel,  as 
in  the  other  narratives,  our  Lord  admits  Himself  to 
be  the  Jewish  Messiah,  uses  the  title  "  Son  of  Man," 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  39 

and  also  owns  His  Divine  Sonship.  Here,  too,  He 
speaks  of  distinct  limitations  on  His  earthly  powers 
and  privileges.  He  repudiates  the  charge  of  His 
enemies  that  He  makes  Himself  equal  with  God 
(John  V.  18,  19);  He  takes  a  subordinate  position 
by  saying  He  was  sent  by  God  (ver.  38) ;  He  only 
teaches  that  which  He  heard  from  God  (viii.  40) ;  He 
can  do  nothing  of  Himself,  but  only  does  what  He 
sees  the  Father  doing  (v.  19).  Such  sayings  point  to 
quite  as  much  subordination  during  the  earthly  life  of 
our  Lord  as  is  indicated  by  any  in  the  Synoptics. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  accentuation  of  the  Divine 
nature  and  exalted  functions  of  our  Lord  is  here 
most  distinct.  The  following  points  may  be  noted 
in  particular : — 

1.  The  idea  of  Divine  Sonship  which  is  admitted 
into  the  Synoptics  is  much  more  prominent  in  the 
fourth  Gospel.  Jesus  here  very  frequently  refers  to 
Himself  as  simply  "the  Son"  in  His  relation  to 
God,  whom  He  names  "the  Father."  The  expression 
"  only  begotten  Son  "  occurs  four  times  in  the  Gospel ; 
but  in  each  case  it  is  in  the  descriptive  language  of 
the  Evangelist,  not  in  the  speeches  of  Christ.  Follow- 
ing our  Lord's  own  teaching,  we  learn  that  as  the 
Son  Jesus  is  in  the  closest  fellowship  Avith  His  Father, 
He  is  one  with  the  Father  (x.  30).  To  see  Him  is 
to  see  the  Father  (xiv.  9).  This  is  quite  in  harmony 
with  Matt.  xi.  27 ;  but  the  wealth  of  references  to 
the  close  intimacy  existing  between  the  Son  and  the 
Father  accentuates  the  conception  of  the  Divinity  of 
our  Lord  in  a  degree  that  is  peculiar  to  the  Gospel 
of  St.  Johq, 


40  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

2.  In  the  fourth  Gospel  Jesus  speaks  much  more 
frequently  of  His  own  person  as  the  source  of  salva- 
tion. It  is  not  now  to  the  gospel,  or  to  the  kingdom, 
but  to  Christ  Himself  that  we  are  to  look  for  the 
highest  blessing.  He  gives  the  water  of  life  (iv,  14; 
vii.  37),  He  is  the  Bread  of  life  (vi.  48-58),  the 
Light  of  the  world  (viii.  12),  the  one  Way  to  the 
Father  (xiv.  G),  the  Door  of  the  sheepfold  (x.  9),  the 
Good  Shepherd  (ver.  11),  the  Vine  in  living  union 
with  which  His  disciples  flourish  as  fruitful  branches, 
separated  from  which  they  wither  and  perish  (xv.  1-7). 
These  and  similar  ideas  with  which  the  Gospel  teems 
give  it  its  highest  value  in  the  self-revelation  of  Christ 
as  the  very  centre  and  source  of  the  whole  life  and 
energy  of  His  people.  They  are  not  contradictoiy  to 
anything  in  the  Synoptics ;  they  are  even  anticipated 
by  the  invitation  to  the  heavy-laden  to  come  to  Christ 
for  rest,  and  by  the  representation  of  His  body  and 
blood  in  the  Last  Supper  as  given  to  Christians  like 
bread  and  wine  for  the  food  of  their  very  life.  But 
they  are  immensely  more  frequent  and  prominent, 
and  they  are  worked  out  much  more  in  detail,  in 
St.  John's  version  of  our  Lord's  teaching. 

3.  St.  John  appears  to  contribute  a  distinct  addition 
to  the  teaching  of  Christ  concerning  Himself  in  the 
Synoptics,  in  recording  utterances  that  point  to  our 
Lord's  pre-existence.  The  passages  in  which  Jesus 
speaks  of  Himself  as  coming  from  the  Father,  and 
from  heaven,  may  not  distinctly  teach  this  truth, 
because  somewhat  similar  passages  may  be  found  in 
connection  with  the  origin  of  godly  men  {e.g.,  compare 
viii,   23  with  xv.    19   and  xvii.   14).      And    yet   the 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  41 

frequent  allusions  to  His  Divine  origin  and  the 
weight  attached  to  it  clearly  point  to  something  in 
the  experience  of  Christ  which  is  far  above  what 
good  men  enjoy  in  deriving  their  spiritual  life  from 
God.  Moreover,  some  j)assages  are  less  ambiguous. 
Thus  in  John  xvii.  5  Jesus  speaks  of  the  glory  which 
He  had  with  the  Father  before  the  world  was.  Wendt 
thinks  that  this  only  means  that  the  glory  itself 
existed  from  eternity  in  readiness  for  the  future 
Messiah.*  But  Jesus  said  He  "  had  it "  (rfj  S6$y  rj  etxov) 
— an  expression  which  certainly  implies  His  personal 
existence.  Then,  in  a  discussion  with  the  Jews,  Jesus 
makes  the  astounding  assertion,  "  Before  Abraham 
was,  I  am "  (John  viii.  57).  Wendt  thinks  that 
His  existence  before  Abraham  was  only  "  in  the 
Spirit  of  God,  in  the  thoughts,  determinations,  and 
promises  of  God " ;  f  and  Beyschlag  maintains  that 
Jesus  was  speaking  only  of  the  pre-existence  of 
"  The  Idea,"  and  he  justifies  his  view  by  a  reference 
to  the  Platonic  doctrine  of  the  real  existence  of  ideas.  J 
But  if  Christ  spoke  these  words  at  all,  is  it  to  be 
supposed  that  His  hearers,  Jews  of  Palestine  with 
most  concrete  modes  of  thought,  would  have  under- 
stood Him  in  any  such  sense  ?  And  the  words  are 
so  startling  and  incisive  that  they  seem  to  bear  the 
stamp  of  a  genuine  recollection  by  the  Apostle. 

*  Dcr  Inhalt  der  Lchrc  Jesu.  p.  470. 

t  Ibid. 

X  Nentestamcntlichc  Thcologle,  vol.  i.,  p.  247. 


42  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 


III.    THE  REVELATION  OF  GOD 

Jesus  claimed  to  be  possessed  of  a  unique  know- 
ledge of  God,  which  He  alone  could  communicate 
to  the  world  (Luke  x.  22).  This  claim  was 
altogether  in  accordance  with  His  primary  mission 
of  establishing  the  kingdom  of  heaven  on  earth; 
because  in  doing  so  He  had  to  bring  men  into 
closer  relations  with  God,  its  Htad.  Yet,  as  we 
have  seen,  it  was  not  at  all  His  method  to  convey 
new  knowledge  in  the  form  of  definite  propositions, 
and  certainly  any  such  thing  would  have  been  quite 
out  of  place  with  a  revelation  of  the  spiritual  world. 
Jesus  aimed  at  revealing  the  centre  of  God,  not 
His  circumference,  which  indeed  does  not  exist  with 
an  infinite  being,  and  therefore  cannot  possibly  be 
described.  It  is  the  heart  of  God  that  Christ  makes 
known,  and  therefore  we  must  not  ask  Him  for  a 
formal  addition  to  the  list  of  Divine  attributes  as 
these  are  detailed  by  systematic  theologians.  Such 
knowledge  as  Christ  gives  is  perceived  by  those  who 
are  in  sympathy  with  Him.  It  is  like  a  man's 
knowledge  of  his  mother.  It  cannot  be  set  forth 
in  words.     All  we  can  define  is  its  effects. 

Dealing  with  these  external  facts,  we  see  that  our 
Lord  accepted  the  Old  Testament  teaching  about 
God  for  the  basis  of  His  own  representations — 
the  Hebrew  monotheism  as  not  only  opposed  to 
polytheism  and  idolatry,  but  as  opposed  to  the 
dualism  which  admits  either  matter  or  a  spirit  of 


THE   NEW  TE>>TAMENT  43 

evil  to  be  in  some  respects  co-ordinate  with  God,  and 
also — what  is  perhaps  even  more  significant  in  the 
Old  Testament — the  lofty  moral  character  of  God, 
His  Fiipreme  righteousness,  His  abhorrence  of  sin. 
Even  what  is  most  original  in  our  Lord's  teaching 
about  God  is  not  absolutely  new  when  regarded  in  a 
hard,  verbal  way.  It  has  its  roots  in  older  teaching ; 
it  is  the  development  of  ideas  of  earlier  revelation. 
But  to  call  it  a  development  is  to  say  something 
of  moment.  Jesus  altered  the  proportion  of  truths, 
exalting  and  expanding  what  had  been  previously 
neglected,  bringing  to  the  foreground  what  had  been 
left  in  the  dim  chstance  and  often  hidden  by  less 
essential  though  more  readily  grasped  ideas. 

It  is  as  true  as  it  is  obvious  that  our  Lord's 
revelation  of  God  centres  in  His  wonderful  teaching 
about  the  Di\nne  Fatherhood.  Now  in  some  degree 
the  Fatherhood  of  God  is  a  truth  widely  perceived 
by  men.  It  is  recognised  by  Homer,  who  describes 
Zeus  as  the  "  father  of  gods  and  men."  In  the  Old 
Testament  it  frequently  recurs,  though  usually  with 
two  limitations  :  first,  it  is  connected  with  Israel, 
not  with  the  whole  human  race  (e.^.,  Hos.  xi.  1) ; 
second,  for  the  most  part  it  is  applied  to  the  nation 
as  a  corporate  unit,  not  to  individuals  {e.g.,  Jer. 
xxxi.  20),  or  if  to  any  individual,  to  the  divinely 
anointed  king  (2  Sam.  vii.  14).  Later,  the  fatherly 
relation  of  God  to  all  individual  Israelites  is  seen,  and 
this  idea  registers  a  great  advance  (e.</.,  Mai.  ii.  10). 
Thus  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  (ii.  18)  calls  the  just  man 
"  the  son  of  God."  Nevertheless,  in  the  Old  Testament 
and  in  Jcwisli  thought  generally  the  supreme  kingship, 


44  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

the  awful  majesty  of  God  predominates,  and  the 
Fatherhood  is  but  subsidiary  and  only  occasionally 
perceived  at  all.  Jesus  reverses  the  order,  and  sets 
the  Fatherhood  of  God  in  the  first  place,  as  that 
which  is  most  essential,  determining  everything  else. 
Thus,  according  to  our  Lord's  revelation,  the  very 
authority  and  government  of  God  are  fatherly,  and  the 
exercise  of  the  Divine  functions  of  ruling  and  judging 
are  determined  by  the  Divine  Fatherhood.  This  does 
not  mean  any  weakening  of  those  functions ;  to 
suppose  that  it  could  do  so  is  to  entertain  the  most 
unw^orthy  notion  of  fatherhood.  No  justice  can  be 
so  exact,  no  righteousness  so  exalted,  no  chastisement 
so  searching,  as  the  justice  and  righteousness  and 
chastisement  exercised  by  a  perfect  father  in  the 
administration  of  his  family.  But  then,  behind  all 
is  the  father's  heart,  which  leads  him  to  do  every- 
thing, not  merely  for  the  sake  of  administering  law 
magisterially,  much  less  only  to  exercise  his  own 
sovereignty — although  he  is  sovereign,  and  although 
he  does  maintain  law — but  with  this  end  in  view,  that 
he  may  throughout  promote  the  highest  good  of  his 
children. 

In  particular  two  or  three  features  of  our  Lord's 
portraiture  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God  should  be 
considered. 

Clearly  it  suggests  the  most  intimate  relationship. 
Nothing  is  more  painfully  evident  in  later  Judaism 
than  the  ever-widening  gulf  between  God  and  the 
world,  which  originated  in  a  well-meant  attempt 
to  exalt  the  Creator  above  the  creation  in  abhor- 
rence of  heathen  i pantheism,   but   which  resulted  in 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  45 

a  cold,  dreary  theism.  The  intermediate  space  was 
peopled  with  angels,  who  discharged  the  functions 
of  Providence,  because  God  was  too  exalted  to  come 
into  immediate  contact  with  man.  On  man's  part 
formal  acts  of  worship,  regarded  as  meritorious  on 
their  own  account,  were  substituted  for  the  living 
communion  of  the  soul  with  God,  now  made  impos- 
sible by  the  vast  separation  between  man  and  his 
Maker.  All  this  Christ  abolished,  bringing  men  and 
women  into  closest  contact  with  God,  as  members  of 
God's  family,  as  God's  own  children,  and  encouraging 
the  utmost  freedom  of  access  to  God  in  prayer  and 
trust.  This  was  one  of  the  most  revolutionary 
elements  in  the  teaching  of  Christ.  It  gave  His 
disciples  a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth — a  heaven 
brought  near  from  beyond  the  skies,  an  earth  no 
longer  God-deserted,  but  filled  with  God's  presence. 
If  we  ask  what  attribute  of  the  Di\ine  Fatherhood 
Christ  made  most  prominent,  the  answer  must  be 
that  this  was  His  love  for  His  children.  It  is  just  to 
recollect  that  Jesus  was  speaking  to  Jews  who  already 
recognised  the  rectoral  relationship  of  God  to  man. 
Had  He  been  addressing  light-hearted  Greeks  who  did 
not  sufficiently  reverence  authority  in  religion,  no 
doubt  He  would  have  dwelt  more  on  this  characteristic. 
He  presupposes  the  Old  Testament.*  Still,  with 
Christ  evidently  the  Father's  care  for  His  children 
is  the  leading   thought  about  God ;  this  lies  behind 

*  Therefore  the  Christian  missionary  to  the  heathen  must 
take  the  Old  Testament  in  his  hand,  as  well  as  the  New  ;  the 
law  and  the  prophets,  as  well  as  Christ ;  and  this  even  to  give 
a  fair  representation  of  the  teaching  of  Christ. 


46  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

and  determines  all  else.  The  very  hairs  of  our  head 
are  all  numbered  by  God.  If  He  clothes  the  open 
fields  with  beauty,  and  feeds  the  repulsive  ravens, 
and  watches  over  the  cheap  sparrows,  much  more 
will  He  provide  for  His  children  (Luke  xii.  6,  24,  27). 
He  is  the  one  "Good"  (Mark  x.  18),  and  His  good- 
ness is  seen  chiefly  in  His  kindness.  If  we,  being  evil, 
know  how  to  give  good  things  to  our  children,  much 
more  will  God,  who  is  not  evil,  not  an  imperfect 
father,  give  good  things  to  them  that  ask  Him 
(Matt.  vii.  11).  Accordingly,  to  be  perfect  like  God  is 
to  love  our  enemies  (v.  43-8),  which  must  mean 
that  the  crown  of  God's  perfection  is  His  love  to  His 
enemies. 

Another  trait  of  Christ's  portrait  of  Divine  Father- 
hood is  its  univei'sality.  Most  of  our  Lord's  words 
concerning  the  Fatherhood  of  God  are  addressed  to 
His  own  disciples,  and  therefore  to  those  who  are 
already  brought  into  happy  relations  of  reconciliation 
with  God.  Moreover,  He  speaks  of  a  certain  condi- 
tion of  conduct  being  necessary — "  that  ye  may  be 
the  children  of  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven" 
(Matt.  V.  45).  Similarly  He  owns  those  who  do  the 
will  of  God  as  His  own  brothers  and  sisters,  etc. 
(Mark  iii.  35),  which  of  course  implies  that  He  could 
not  regard  other  people  in  the  same  light.  On  the 
other  hand,  all  that  He  says  of  the  nature  and 
character  of  God  suggests  a  breadth  of  Fatherhood 
which  cannot  be  confined  to  a  section  of  mankind. 
The  whole  idea  of  the  gospel  springs  from  that 
conception  of  God's  love  to  lost  and  fallen  men 
which  is  just  an  outcome  of  His  fatherly  heart.     Our 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  47 

Lord's  description  of  Clod's  indiscriminate  kindness  in 
providence  is  in  accordance  with  the  universality  of 
His  Fatherhood — "  for  He  maketh  His  sun  to  rise 
on  the  evil  and  the  good,  and  sendeth  rain  on  the 
just  and  the  unjust  "  (Matt.  v.  45).  The  parable 
of  the  Prodigal  Son  presents  the  same  idea  most 
pointedly,  especially  when  we  consider  that  the 
immediate  occasion  of  that  parable  was  the  harsh 
narrowness  of  the  Pharisees  who  objected  to  Christ's 
freedom  of  brotherly  intercourse  with  persons  of  ill- 
repute  (Luke  XV.  1,2).  These  two  positions  may  be 
easily  reconciled.  God  is  the  Father  of  all  mankind, 
loving  all,  kind  to  all,  and  calling  all  to  Himself 
in  the  gospel.  But  His  disobedient  children  do  not 
enjoy  the  fatherly  relationship  excepting  in  their 
share  of  the  generjxl  providence  of  God,  and  in  the 
fact  that  it  is  open  to  them  to  have  higher  privileges. 
The  prodigal  son  must  come  to  himself  before  the 
fact  that  he  has  a  father  can  mean  anything  to  him. 
In  his  abandoned  state  he  is  worse  off  than  the 
hirelings  at  home,  and  therefore  practically  no  longer 
a  son — lost,  dead.  His  return  is  his  coming  back  to 
the  experiences  of  sonship. 

In  our  Lord's  revelation  of  God  in  the  fourth 
Gospel,  the  most  striking  thing  is  a  fact  apparent 
also  in  the  Synoptics,  but  less  promhiently  than  here  — 
viz.,  that  the  revelation  is  in  the  person  and  charac- 
ter of  Christ  Himself.  Not  only  does  Jesus  say,  "  He 
that  hath  seen  Me  hath  seen  the  Father "  (John 
xiv.  9),  but  He  makes  us  perceive  the  truth  of  His 
words.  Our  highest  conception  of  God  is  just  the 
character  of  Christ.     Hence,  quite  apart  from   any 


48  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

words  about  God,  by  simply  living  among  us  and 
manifesting  His  own  thoughts  and  springs  of  action, 
Jesus  gives  us  the  highest  revelation  of  Divinity, 
because  He  gives  us  the  most  perfect  exhibition  of 
supreme  goodness.  If  God  is  the  One  Good,  as  we 
have  learnt  in  the  Synoptics,  Christ  must  be  the 
most  complete  revelation  of  God,  because  in  Christ 
we  perceive  the  most  exalted  type  of  goodness  ever 
witnessed  on  earth. 

Coming  to  details,  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  Jesus 
only  once  in  the  fourth  Gospel  speaks  of  God  as  "  your 
Father"  (xx.  17).  But  He  often  uses  the  expression 
''  the  Father."  No  doubt  this  agrees  with  the  more 
prominent  position  of  His  own  Sonship  expressed  by 
the  corresponding  phrase  ''the  Son."  Still,  the  phrase 
also  points  to  the  idea  of  Fatherhood  itself  as 
essential  to  God,  and  it  does  so  in  that  more  abstract 
style  which  is  characteristic  of  St.  John's  Gospel. 

Another  thought  is  that  of  the  essential  spirituality 
of  God  to  which  our  Lord  directs  the  attention  of  the 
woman  at  the  well  by  declaring  emphatically,  "God 
is  Spirit "  (iv.  24).  Therefore  He  can  only  be  wor- 
shipped in  spirit  and  in  truth. 

In  marked  contrast  to  the  rabbinical  notion  of 
the  withdrawal  of  God  into  the  heavens  while  the 
world  is  administered  by  angels,  we  have  the  idea  of 
the  immanence  of  God,  and  His  present  activity  in 
the  universe,  suggested  by  the  words,  "  M}'-  Father 
worketh  even  until  now,  and  I  work  "  (v.  17). 

It  has  been  asserted  that  the  fourth  Gospel  em- 
bodies a  system  of  dualism  which  can  be  traced 
throughout     in     the     conflict     between     light     and 


THE   XEW  TESTAMENT  49 

darkness ;  and  this  is  said  to  bo  most  apparent  in  the 
distinction  between  the  children  of  Abraham  and  the 
children  of  the  devil,  brought  forward  by  our  Lord 
in  chap.  viii.  But  to  press  the  latter  antithesis  so  as 
to  make  it  represent  a  radical  opposition  of  being  and 
origin  is  to  distort  the  text.  The  contrast  of  parentage 
is  not  between  God  anel  Satan,  but  between  Abraham 
and  Satan — here  the  dualism  breaks  down  at  once. 
B:  sides,  we  have  not  two  races  set  in  conflict.  Though 
Abraham  was  regarded  as  the  head  of  a  specially 
privileged  nation,  nobody  pretended  that  all  who 
were  not  Jews  had  sprung  from  Satan. 

Plainly  our  Lord's  whole  argument  deals  with 
moral  characteristics.  They  are  children  of  the  devil 
who  are  under  his  influence,  assimilated  to  his  like- 
ness, members  of  his  household.  John  the  Baptist's 
expression  "  C4eneration  of  vipers "  is  somewhat 
analogous.  That  the  universal  Fatheihood  of  God 
cannot  be  here  excluded  should  be  apparent  when 
we  consider  the  unlimited  offers  of  grace  which  are  so 
characteristic  of  this  gospel — unless  we  are  to  believe 
with  Luther  that  all  such  appeals  in  Scripture  are 
uttered  ironically  ! 

IV.     THE    GOSPEL 

The  subject  of  the  preaching  of  our  Lord  was 
designated  in  the  earliest  recoicls  "The  Gospel  (to 
ivayyiXiov)  of  God  "  (Mark  i.  14),  and  "The  Gospel 
of  the  Kingdom"  (Matt.  iv.  23).  On  His  visit  to 
the  synagogue  at  Nazareth  Jesus  read  an  ancient 
prophecy  which   contains  the  words  "The  Spirit  of 

4 


50  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

the  Lord  is  upon  Me,  because  He  anointed  Me  to 
declare  good  tidings  (cvayyeXia-aa-Oai)  to  the  poor " 
(Luke  iv.  18),  and  applied  it  to  His  own  message; 
and  in  giving  His  commission  to  the  Apostles  He  told 
them  that  ''  The  Gospel "  must  be  preached  to  all 
nations  (Mark  xiii.  10).  It  is  in  accordance  with  this 
description  of  the  Christian  message  that  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  opens  with  Beatitudes.  The  people  of 
Galilee  wei-e  quick  to  discover  that  Jesus  was  bringing 
good  tidings  to  them,  for  they  flocked  to  Him  and 
"  heard  Him  gladly."  The  joyousness  of  His  disciples 
was  positively  offensive  to  Pharisees,  who  thought 
that  it  was  not  becoming  for  religious  people  to  be 
very  happy  (Mark  ii.  18).  No  doubt  a  revelation  of 
truth,  whatever  it  is,  must  bring  some  satisfaction 
to  perplexed  souls  in  search  of  light ;  but  evidently 
the  description  of  a  message  as  "  good  tidings  "  and 
the  reception  of  it  with  great  and  general  delight 
point  to  something  in  the  contents  of  the  message 
which  is  in  itself  most  pleasing.  Now  this  is  not 
apparent  in  John  the  Baptist's  preaching,  which 
threatens  judgment  and  destruction  in  the  dreadful 
day  of  the  Lord  after  the  manner  of  his  favourite 
prophet  Malachi;  and  even  the  ethical  teaching  of 
Jesus,  while  it  entrances  us  with  its  purity  and 
elevation,  is  so  searching  and  exacting — requiring  a 
righteousness  which  exceeds  the  righteousness  of  the 
most  correct  people,  such  as  scribes  and  Pharisees — 
that  taken  by  itself  it  would  seem  to  impose  a  heavier 
burden  than  that  of  the  law,  and  therefore  could 
scarcely  be  regarded  as  a  gospel.  It  is  necessary  to 
see  that  there  is  another  side  to  the  teaching  of  Christ, 


THE   NFAV   TESTAMENT  51 

which  exph^ins  the  ease  of  His  yoke  and  the  ligl]tness 
of  His  burden.  When  this  is  perceived  it  becomas 
appj^rent  that  the  good  tidings  are  not  in  conflict  with 
tlie  severe  ethics,  but  that  they  even  include  the 
moral  ideal,  although  they  put  this  on  an  entirely 
new  foundation.  How,  then,  may  the  contents  of 
the  preaching  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles  be  emphatic- 
ally denominated  "  good  news  "  ? 

In  the  first  place,  it  must  be  repeated,*  Christ  re- 
garded the  announcement  of  the  approaching  advent 
of  the  kingdom  of  God  as  itself  good  news.  This  was 
obviously  so  with  the  Jewish  expectation  of  material 
prosperity.  But  Jesus  would  have  it  seen  that  there 
was  even  more  cause  for  gladness  in  the  coming  of  the 
kingdom  in  the  spiritual  might  and  glory  which  He 
ascribed  to  it.  So  He  spoke  of  the  kingdom  itself  as  a 
treasury,  as  a  marriage  feast.  This  must  mean  that  it 
is  a  good  thing  for  the  world  that  the  rule  of  God  is  to  be 
established  in  willing  hearts.  While  people  imagined 
political  oppression,  poverty,  and  pain  to  be  the  great 
evils  from  which  the  new  age  would  liberate  them,  Jesus 
considered  that  the  root  e\\\  was  rebellion  against  the 
will  of  God.  This  is  why  the  full  coming  of  God's 
kingdom  in  the  perfect  doing  of  God's  will  on  earth 
as  it  is  done  in  heaven  was  in  His  teaching  the 
summum  honum.  W^ith  this  we  must  associate 
His  revelation  of  God  as  the  Father.  Our  ^-iew  of 
the  desirability  of  the  privilege  of  citizenship  in  a 
kingdom  the  law  of  which  is  nothing  less  than  the 
absolute  will  of  the  sovereign   must  dejiend  on  our 

idea  of  the  character  of  the  king.      A  kingdom  of 
*  See  p.  24. 


52  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

Moloch  would  be  an  inferno.  The  kingdom  of  God 
is  to  be  a  paradise,  just  because  God  is  a  perfectly 
good  Father.  Thus,  by  His  revelation  of  God,  Jesus 
made  it  apparent  that  the  proclamation  of  the  advent 
of  the  kingdom  of  God  was  the  declaration  of  good 
tidings.  Moreover,  when  His  disciples  began  to  per- 
ceive the  nature  of  His  Messiah shij),  side  by  side  with 
the  wonderful  attractiveness  of  His  own  pure,  perfectly 
unselfish,  and  most  kind  life  and  character,  they  came 
to  know  the  kingdom  as  it  was  embodied  in  Christ 
Himself,  and  thus  it  was  revealed  to  them  in  the 
most  winsome  form.  Seeing  the  kingdom  in  Christ 
we  perceive  that  it  is  most  attractive. 

But  our  Lord  definitely  promised  certain  distinctive 
boons.  While  with  the  proclamation  of  the  kingdom 
He  showed  that  on  man's  side  repentance  was 
necessary,  on  His  own  side  He  offered  forgiveness. 
Though  this  offer  is  not  stated  in  the  meagre  reports 
of  the  commencement  .of  our  Lord's  ministry,  it 
must  have  been  present  from  the  beginning,  because 
it  is  one  of  the  essential  characteristics  of  that 
teaching  which  is  most  fully  recorded.  Thus,  to 
the  paralytic  at  Capernaum — who,  according  to  the 
earliest  account,  seems  to  have  had  himself  conveyed 
to  Jesus  in  distress  about  his  sins  rather  than  in  search 
of  bodily  health — our  Lord  pronounced  immediate 
and  full  forgiveness  ;  and  then,  seeing  that  this  daring 
utterance  excited  the  first  symptoms  of  opposition  on 
the  part  of  the  scribes,  Jesus,  as  the  Son  of  Man, 
distinctly  claimed  authority  on  earth  to  forgive  sins 
(Markii.  5,  10).  It  is  in  the  Gospel  according  to  St. 
Luke,  however,  that  the  teaching  of  Christ  in  regard 


THE  XEW  TESTAMENT  53 

to  this  subject  is  most  fully  expounded,  and  from  that 
Gospel  we  may  gather  three  great  truths  concerning 
forgiveness. 

The  first  is  the  universal  need  of  forgiveness, 
shown  especially  in  the  case  of  the  Pharisee  and 
the  Sinner  (Luke  xviii.  10-14). 

The  second  is  the  unlimited  possibilities  of  forgive- 
ness. Jesus  does  not  minimise  sin  or  excuse  it ;  on 
the  contrary,  He  shows  it  to  be  an  unspeakably  more 
horrible  evil  than  men  ever  suspected.  But  He 
proclaims  a  forgiveness  that  is  ample  enough  for 
all  sin.  Of  the  woman  who  is  known  as  "  a  sinner,'' 
Jesus  affirms  that  her  sins  are  "  many,"  but  also  that 
they  are  all  "  forgiven  her  "  (Luke  vii.  47).  The 
blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  only  excep- 
tion to  the  universal  forgiveness,  and  evidently  this 
cannot  be  so  because  the  Hmit  of  grace  is  at  last 
reached,  but  because  to  call  good  evil  is  to  pervert  the 
conscience  so  completely  that  repentance,  which  is  the 
first  condition  of  forgiveness,  is  necessarily  rendered 
impossible  to  a  person  who  deliberately  does  this. 

The  third  truth  is  the  personal  nature  of  forgive- 
ness, which  is  not  merely  the  withholding  of  punish- 
ment or  the  cancelling  of  a  debt,  but  in  the  heart  of 
it  a  reconciliation  with  One  whom  we  have  grieved 
and  wronged  by  our  misconduct.  This  is  made 
apparent  in  the  pai-able  of  the  Prodigal  Son,  whose 
pardon  is  seen  in  the  welcome  accorded  to  him  by  his 
father.  That  is  to  say,  forgiveness  goes  straight  to 
sin,  rather  than  to  its  pains  and  penalties.  The  sin 
is  buried  in  oblivion,  and  the  penitent  restored  to  tl;e 
old  status  of  communion  with  God. 


54  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

It  is  to  be  observed,  further,  that  Jesus  not  only 
connects  penitence  with  pardon,  but  also  assigns  a 
man's  forgiveness  of  his  brother  as  an  essential  con- 
dition of  God's  forgiveness  (Matt.  vi.  14,  15).  An 
irreconcilable  temper  towards  a  fellow-man  excludes 
reconciliation  with  God.* 

In  His  discourse  at  Nazareth,  Avhen  quoting  from 
the  prophecy  concerning  the  good  tidings,  Jesus  claims 
to  fulfil  the  words  that  promise  '*  release  to  the 
captives "  and  "  liberty  to  them  that  are  bruised " 
(Luke  iv.  18).  This  is  just  what  the  oppressed  Jews 
looked  for  in  their  Messianic  deliverance  from  the 
Roman  tyranny.  Our  Lord  promises  the  boon  in 
another  form.  Liberation  from  spiritual  evil  is  most 
clearly  set  forth  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  but  the  idea 
of  it  pervades  the  whole  teaching  of  the  Synoptics. 
It  is  powerfully  suggested  by  all  the  miracles  of 
healing.  The  word  salvation  {fnaT-qpia),  which  means, 
primarily,  making  sound  or  healthy,  transfers  to  the 
spiritual  realm  the  healing  ministry  which  miracles 
illustrate  in  the  physical.  Jesus  appeared  as  the 
Friend  of  sinners,  not  simply  because  He  was  sociable 
with  them,  but  because  He  was  their  Physician ;  and 
His  sociability,  which  gave  natural  offence  to  Pharisees 
who  had  not  discovered  its  motive,  was  one  essential 
condition  of  His  practical  work  in  restoring  the  most 
abandoned  characters  to  spiritual  health. 

Jesus  grievously  disappointed  the  hopes  of  woildly- 

*  That  this  is  not  an  arbitrary  contlition  is  clear  if  we 
follow  St.  John  when  he  says,  "  He  that  loveth  not  his  brother 
whom  he  hath  seen  cannot  love  God  whom  he  hath  not  seen  " 
(1  John  iv.  20). 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  55 

minded  Jews  because  He  did  not  offer  wealth  and 
ease,  but,  on  the  contrary,  hardships  and  persecutions, 
contumely  and  the  cross  (Mark  \dii.  34).  Never- 
theless, He  promised  His  disciples  temporal  blessings. 
He  encouraged  them  to  pray  for  daily  bread  (Matt, 
vi.  11)  ;  He  bade  them  not  be  anxious  about  food  and 
raiment,  because  their  heavenly  Father  knew  their 
needs;  and  He  told  them  that  if  they  first  sought 
the  kingdom  of  God  all  other  things  would  be  added 
(ver.  33).  It  may  seem  that  these  separate  lines  of 
teaching  do  not  agree.  Two  considerations,  however, 
should  remove  the  difficulty.  First,  Christ  did  not 
consider  that  many  earthly  things  were  necessary 
or  even  beneficial.  Wealth  He  regarded  as  a  danger 
and  a  snare,  and  the  rich  man  as  an  object  of  pity 
rather  than  of  envy.  Yery  few  earthly  things  are 
really  needed.  It  is  daily  bread  for  which  we  are  to 
pray — not  stores  for  the  future,  and  not  luxuries. 
Yet  much  of  the  anxiety  and  disappointment  of  life 
is  simply  concerned  with  unnecessary  desires  for  these 
things.  Second,  Christ  moved  in  a  society  in  which, 
it  would  seem,  men  could  generally  obtain  a  fair 
livelihood,  although  the  many  references  to  poverty 
and  distress  in  the  New  Testament  testify  to  the 
social  troubles  that  always  accompany  such  j^olitical 
disturbances  as  were  not  infrequent  in  Galilee  in  the 
first  century.  He  was  not  contemplating  the  absolute 
breakdown  of  civilisation  which  we  witness  in  modern 
cities,  where  ghastly  misery  is  hidden  behind  the  pomp 
of  wealth  and  splendour.  But,  then,  if  His  teachings 
were  honestly  applied  to  social  questions  to-day,  this 
disgrace  to  Christendom  would  disappear.     When  the 


56  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

kingdom  of  heaven  is  fully  established  life  on  earth 
must  be  cheerful  and  contented. 

One  element  in  the  deliverance  brought  by  Christ 
was  intended  to  help  His  fellow-countrymen  in  regard 
to  a  peculiar  trouble  of  their  religious  life.  Tliis  was 
liberation  from  the  yoke  of  rabbinical  casuistry,  a 
galling  3^oke  which  He  indignantly  condemned  when 
He  saw  heartless  pretenders  making  use  of  the  influ- 
ence gained  by  official  position  or  saintly  reputation 
to  bind  on  their  meek  pupils  burdens  which  they 
themselves  would  not  so  much  as  touch  with  their 
fingers  (Luke  xi.  46).  To  a  people  labouring  and 
heavy  laden  with  such  gratuitous  obligations  He 
ofTercd  the  restfulness  that  accompanied  His  yoke. 
This  was  easy  not  because  its  requirements  were  small 
— they  were  greater  than  those  of  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees— but  because  they  did  not  consist  in  irri- 
tating external  performances.  In  their  very  breadth 
and  elevation  they  were  capable  of  exercising  an 
exhilarating  influence  over  the  people  who  submitted 
to  them,  and  they  could  be  readily  observed  in  the 
inspiring  presence  of  their  Author.  The  permanent 
element  in  our  Lord's  teaching  which  corresponds  to 
this  liberation  of  the  Jews  from  rabbinism  is  the 
universal  offer  of  spiritual  liberty,  so  that  the  disciple 
of  Christ  is  always  free  to  use  his  own  judgment  in 
the  application  of  the  large  principles  he  has  received 
from  his  Master  to  the  details  of  daily  conduct. 

Above  all  these  specific  boons  there  is  one  supremely 
glorious  blessing  promised  by  Christ  to  His  followers, 
the  greatest  of  all  conceivable  personal  possessions — 
the  gift  of  eternal  life  ;  and  with  this  is  connected  the 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  57 

promise  of  rewards  to  the  faithful.  But  these  things 
belong  to  eschatology,  which  must  be  considered  in  a 
subsequent  section. 

The  main  ideas  of  the  teaching  of  our  Lord  on  these 
subjects  in  the  Synoi^tics  are  confirmed  by  St.  John, 
The  forgiveness  of  sins,  deliverance  from  evil — spiritual 
and  temporal,  and  eternal  life,  are  all  offered  in  the 
fourth  Gospel,  But  fresh  light  is  thrown  on  some  of 
these  points,  and  others  less  apparent  in  the  Synoptics 
are  made  clear. 

Freedom  from  the  slavery  of  sin,  vividly  suggested 
in  the  Synoptics  by  the  whole  mission  and  work  of 
Christ,  is  clearly  expounded  in  John.  It  is  the  one 
kind  of  liberty  that  Christ  is  represented  as  bringing. 
The  captives  are  the  slaves  of  sin,  for  he  who  gives 
way  to  sin  makes  sin  his  master.  The  liberation  is 
breaking  Satan's  yoke  and  delivering  men  from  the 
power  of  sin  (John  viii.  31-4). 

In  the  Synoptics  eternal  life  usually  appears  as  a 
future  boon ;  in  the  fourth  Gospel  it  is  a  present  pos- 
session {e.g.,  V.  24),  although  even  here  it  occasionally 
takes  its  old  place  among  the  hopes  of  the  future 
(iv.  14,  36  ;  vi.  27  ;  xi.  25).  We  may  compare  this 
difference  of  treatment  with  the  distinctive  ways  of 
regarding  the  kingdom  of  God,  even  in  the  Synoptics, 
as  both  present  and  future.*  The  life  begins  now  on 
earth,  but  it  survives  death,  and  it  reaches  out  into 
eternity.  This  may  be  illustrated  by  the  words  of 
Jesus  addressed  to  Martha  of  Bethany,  in  which  He 
says  that  whoever  trusts  in  Him  will  never  die  (xi.  26). 
But  if  it  is  a  present  possession,  the  life  is  more  than 
*  Pages  22,  23. 


58  THE  THEOLOGY   OF 

the  gift  of  immortality.  The  promise  of  eternal  life 
cannot  mean  simply  that  they  who  receive  it  will  not 
be  annihilated  in  the  future.  This  promise  must 
refer  to  something  in  itself  different  from  the  animal 
life.  According  to  His  custom  our  Lord  refrains  from 
defining  the  phrase.*  He  leaves  us  to  discover  His 
meaning  in  the  course  of  His  teaching,  and  in  doing 
so  we  are  led  to  see  that  He  is  directing  our  minds  to 
the  thought  of  the  life  of  the  soul  in  contact  with 
God  in  which  the  higher  nature  is  quickened  into 
activity — i.e.,  a  real  present  spiritual  life. 

Finally,  we  have  the  promises  of  the  Paraclete. 
John  the  Baptist  predicted  that  the  coming  Christ 
would  baptise  with  the  Spirit ;  and,  according  to 
St.  Luke,  Jesus  said  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  given 
by  God  in  answer  to  prayer  (Luke  xi.  13),  and  was 
indeed  the  source  of  His  own  power  (xii.  12).  In  His 
last  discourse  He  declares  that  after  a  little  while  He 
will  come  again  (John  xvi.  16),  having  previously 
promised  that  He  would  send  another  Comforter,  the 
Spirit  of  truth  (xiv.  16).  The  one  phrase  is  some- 
times taken  to  refer  to  our  Lord's  resurrection,  and 
the  other  to  the  Pentecostal  gift,  while  some  of 
Christ's  expressions  seem  to  be  more  appropriate  to 
the  Second  Advent  {e.g.,  xiv.  3).  But  it  is  not  in 
harmony  with  the  tone  of  this  discourse  for  sharp 
distinctions  to  be  drawn,  and  we  must  remember  that 
as  yet  no  definition  of  the  Trinity  had  been  attempted. 
It   is   more   congenial   to   the   circumstances  not   to 

*  John  xvii.  3  is  not  a  definition,  but  a  description  of  the 
means  through  which  eternal  life  is  received. 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  59 

separate  tlie  mission  of  the  Spirit  from  the  spiritual 
presence  of  Christ  among  His  people. 

Jesus  seems  to  be  contemplating  this  abiding  pre- 
sence of  Himself  as  really  the  principal  consequence 
of  His  return  {e.g.,  xiv.  19).  He  looks  beyoud  the 
resurrection,  and  His  brief,  transient,  eart^hly  mani- 
festations of  Himself  to  a  few  disciples,  to  tbe  much 
greater  consequences  of  His  dwelling  perpetually  in 
the  Church.  This  seems  to  blend  with  the  coming  of 
the  Spirit.  Beyschlag  points  out  that  here,  however, 
a  limited  sphere  is  assigned  to  the  Spirit.*  (1)  The 
Spirit's  influence  is  on  earth;  Christ  is  also  the 
Mediator  in  heaven.  (2)  The  Spirit  does  not  give 
new  truth,  but  only  calls  to  mind  the  teaching  of 
Christ  (xvi.  13,  14).  (3)  The  operation  of  the  Spirit 
is  here  limited  to  truth-teaching,  while  Christ  is  the 
source  of  life,  as  is  shown  in  the  image  of  the  vine. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  important  to  observe  that  our 
Lord  does  not  expressly  lay  down  any  limits  for  the 
sphere  and  operation  of  the  Spirit.  He  simply  names 
certain  functions  which  were  appropriate  to  His 
immediate  aim  in  preparing  the  disciples  for  His 
departure. 

V.    REDEMPTION 

The  fact  that  Jesus  Christ  came  proclaiming  a 
gospel  is  itself  an  indication  that  He  did  not  expect 
men  to  work  out  their  own  redemption  by  service,  or 
sacrifice,  or  any  other  meritorious  action;    it  shows 

*  Nv utcatamoitlicho  Theologic,  vol.  i.,  pp.  274-7. 


60  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

that  He  regarded  the  salvation  of  the  world  as  a 
Divine  act — one  springing  from  God's  love,  mani- 
festing His  free  favour,  and  realising  itself  in  His 
almighty  energy.  A  prophet's  appeal  to  the  con- 
science is  a  wholesome  message,  but  we  can  scarcely 
call  it  a  gospel.  The  good  news  goes  further,  as  we 
have  seen,  and  tells  of  gifts  and  blessings  which  God 
is  prepared  to  bestow.  Thus  we  are  brought  to  con- 
sider the  Divine  source  and  process  of  redemption. 

Nothing  is  more  characteristic  of  the  teaching  of 
our  Lord  than  His  revelation  that  salvation  directly 
flows  out  of  the  illimitable  goodness  of  God,  This  is 
most  strikingly  apparent  when  it  is  considered  in  its 
contrast  to  the  course  recommended  by  the  Jewish 
teachers  of  His  day,  who  directed  anxious  souls  to 
almf^glviug,  fasting,  ablutions,  formal  prayers,  &'abbath 
observance,  and  other  irksome  mechanical  perform- 
ances. In  sharp  opposition  to  all  these  recommenda- 
tions Jesus  shows  that  God  has  ccncernecl  Himself 
to  recover  His  lost  children.  His  pure  fatherly  love, 
His  deep  compassion.  His  effective  energy — these  are 
the  foundations  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  Our  Lord 
says  that  the  immediate  purpose  of  His  own  mission 
is  to  seek  and  to  save  them  that  are  lost,  like  a 
shepherd  rescuing  wandering  sheep  (Matt,  xviii. 
11-13).  His  work  is  compared  to  the  action  of  the 
woman  who  will  light  a  lamp  and  sweep  her  house 
in  search  of  a  single  coin  (Luke  xv.  8-10).  He  is 
the  Physician  whose  sole  business  is  with  the  sick 
(Mark  ii.  17).  Here  we  see  not  only  the  generous 
forgiveness  that  welcomes  a  penitent,  but  also  active 
exertion  in  searching  hyti  out  and  restoring  him.     In 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  61 

this,  the  central  work  of  His  life-mission,  Jesus  Christ 
reveals  a  power  which  counteracts  the  tendency  that 
tl»e  study  of  nature  in  our  own  day  has  shown  to  be 
at  work  in  all  legions  of  life.  While  the  doctrine 
of  evolution  by  the  survival  of  the  fittest  may  be  a 
delightful  creed  for  the  successful,  it  is  a  sentence  of 
doom  on  the  unfortunate.  Now  our  Lord  comes  to 
reverse  failure.  Of  Him  w^e  read  the  prophecy,  "  A 
bruised  reed  shall  He  not  break,  and  smoking  flax 
shall  He  not  quench  "  (Matt.  xii.  20). 

Turning  to  consider  our  Lord's  revelation  of  the 
means  by  which  He  carried  out  His  saving  work,  if  we 
were  to  judge  by  the  time  and  trouble  He  devoted  to 
preaching  and  teaching,  as  well  as  by  the  large  place 
His  public  and  private  instruction  occupies  in  the 
Gospels,  we  should  conclude  that  thLs  was  His  chief 
work.  He  first  appears  as  a  Preacher  proclaiming  the 
gospel  (K7;pv(rcra)i/),  and  then  as  a  Teacher  explaining 
truth  to  His  disciples  (8t8ao-Kwi/),  He  was  known 
among  His  contemporaries  by  the  name  "  Teacher  " 
(StSao-KoAo?,  e.g.,  Mark  x.  17) — i.e.,  as  a  Rabbi.  The 
freshness  of  His  ideas  arrested  attention,  and  compelled 
His  hearers  to  exclaim  with  amazement,  "What  is 
this?  A  new  teaching"  (i.  27).  We  cannot  suppose 
that  Christ's  teaching  had  no  connection  with  the  great 
work  of  redemption.  Assuredly  it  was  an  instrument 
for  seeking  and  saving  the  lost,  by  directing  men  to 
right  views  of  themselves  and  God,  by  leading  them 
to  a  perception  of  the  requirements  of  righteousness 
and  the  guilt  of  sin,  to  a  consciousness  of  the  forgiving 
mercy  of  God  and  the  claims  and  privileges  of  His 
kingdom.      Thus  Christ  was  sowing  the  seed  of  life 


62  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

by  means  of  teaching,  as  the  parable  of  the  Sower 
showed  (Mark  iv.  20).  Next  to  preaching  and  teach- 
ing Jesus  was  most  actively  employed  in  healing  the 
sick.  Tlie  Gospels  bring  out  the  intimate  connection 
between  His  words  and  His  works,  showing  over  and 
over  again  how  a  miracle  was  the  occasion  of  some 
discussion  with  our  Lord's  critics  or  some  pregnant 
utterance  of  His  own.*  It  does  not  appear  that  the 
leading  motive  of  Jesus  in  healing  the  sick  was  to 
furnish  materials  for  Christian  evidences.  When 
asked  for  a  supernatural  portent  He  refused  to  supply 
it  (Matt.  xii.  38,  39).  He  never  made  any  display  of 
His  miracles;  on  the  contrary,  He  endeavoured  to 
suppress  the  fame  of  them  {e.g.,  Mark  i.  43).  So  far 
was  He  from  exhibiting  a  miracle  to  induce  faith,  that 
He  required  faith  as  the  condition  of  performing  one 
(ix.  23,  24).  The  Evangelists  assign  an  entirely 
different  motive  for  His  action  in  saying  that  He 
healed  the  sick  because  "  He  was  moved  with  com- 
passion" {e.g.,  Matt.  ix.  36).  This  simple,  touching 
statement,  taken  in  connection  with  the  corresponding 
character  of  the  miracles,  casts  a  flood  of  light  on  the 
main  purpose  of  our  Lord's  ministry.  In  His  verbal 
teaching  He  mingled  severity  and  gentleness  with  an 
almost   Rembrandtesque   sharpness   of    antithesis   of 


*  This  is  very  apparent  in  St.  Luke,  who  is  most  careful  to 
connect  the  sayings  of  Christ  with  the  incidents  out  of  which 
they  arise,  while  St.  Matthew^  more  often  groups  them  in  con- 
nected discourses,  and  St.  Mark  reports  fewer  of  them.  Hence 
w^e  may  infer  that,  on  the  Avhole,  the  third  Gospel  gives  us  a 
more  primitive  version  of  Christ's  sayings  than  the  first — the 
earliest  account  of  all  being  St.  Mark's, 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  63 

light  and  shade.  But  this  contrast  was  wholly  miss- 
ing from  His  works.  For  the  sick  and  suffering  He 
had  nothing  but  compassion.  Without  excei3tion  His 
miracles  are  deeds  of  pure  kindness.  Now  it  is  clear 
that  such  works,  though  not  primarily  intended  to 
serve  a  didactic  purpose,  were  in  fact  parables  vividly 
illustrative  of  the  healing  of  souls.  At  the  same  time 
onr  Lord  made  them  serve  in  His  direct  assault  on  the 
kingdom  of  darkness  (Luke  x.  18).  They  show  that 
His  redeeming  work  is  intended  to  ameliorate  the 
temporal,  physical  condition  of  men  as  well  as  their 
spiritual  nature.  Therefore  it  is  legitimate  to  infer 
from  them  that  as  God  gave  miracles  to  the  first 
century,  so  He  has  given  science  to  the  nineteenth 
century,  i.e.,  to  be  an  instrument  for  the  redemption 
of  man,  and  therefore  that  sanitation  and  medical 
missions  should  be  regarded  as  integral  parts  of 
Christian  service. 

In  the  next  place  it  is  to  be  observed  that,  though 
wc  read  less  of  our  Lord's  personal  claims  in  the 
Synoptics  than  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  what  is  recorded 
there  is  most  emphatic ;  the  whole  picture  of  the  life 
of  Christ  reveals  the  unique  spell  of  His  personality, 
and  makes  it  evident  to  us  that  His  life  and  character 
are  at  the  root  of  His  redeeming  work.  He  evidently 
refers  to  Himself  as  the  robber  of  Satan  who  binds 
the  strong  man  and  spoils  his  house  (Mark  iii.  27). 
It  is  in  His  name  that  the  demons  are  subject  to 
His  disciples ;  and  on  hearing  of  the  success  of  the 
seventy  Jesus  exclaims,  "  I  beheld  Satan  falling  as 
lightning  from  heaven,"  and  then  He  adds  that  He 
has  given  them  authority  "  over  all  the  power  of  the 


64  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

enemy"  (Luke  x.  17-20).  On  the  same  occasion  He 
invites  the  labouring  and  heavy-laden  to  come  to  Him 
for  rest  (Matt.  xi.  28). 

It  is  apparent  to  every  reader  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment that  the  purpose  of  the  death  of  Christ  does 
not  take  the  pre-eminence  in  His  own  teaching  which 
it  assumes  in  that  of  St.  Paul.  In  regard  to  this 
subject  more  perhaps  than  in  regard  to  any  other  we 
may  see  a  development  of  doctrine  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. But  quite  apart  from  the  fact  that  Christian 
ideas  are  thus  introduced  by  degrees,  it  is  obvious 
that  subsequent  reflections  on  the  Cross  in  the  clear 
light  of  all  its  tragic  circumstances  are  likely  to  be 
richer  than  anticipatory  references  to  it  in  those 
early  days  when  it  only  loomed  on  the  horizon  as 
a  gradually  emerging  destiny  of  the  future.  Still, 
our  Lord  uttered  some  definite  predictions  about  His 
approaching  doom  ;  these  were  scarcely  grasped  by 
His  discij)les,  but  to  us  they  cannot  but  be  of 
profound  interest.  It  is  evident  that  there  was  a 
progressive  distinctness  in  His  teaching  on  this  topic, 
corresponding,  perhaps,  to  the  progress  of  His  own 
human  consciousness  respecting  it.  At  first  all  was 
sunshine  and  hope  ;  but  after  opposition  was  roused, 
and  as  this  grew  ominously  more  and  more  deter- 
mined and  virulent,  it  became  clear  to  Him  that 
there  could  be  but  one  end  if  He  would  be  true  to 
the  course  He  had  chosen  with  a  full  conviction  that 
it  was  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  God ;  this  end 
our  Lord  perceived  and  described  with  growing 
distinctness.  The  deepening  shadow  of  the  Cross  was 
thus  upon  His  path  throughout  His  later  ministry. 


THE   XEW  TESTAMENT  (Jo 

In  speaking  of  His  passion  and  death  Jesus  added 
fresh  details  each  time  He  referred  to  the  subject. 
But  from  His  first  announcement  of  it  He  always 
connected  it  with  His  supreme  destiny.  It  was  never 
regarded  by  Him  as  an  accident,  nor  did  He  even 
treat  it  as  a  sheer  calamity,  like  the  murder  of  John 
the  Baptist,  or  as  simply  the  tei-mination  of  His 
career.  This  is  apparent  from  the  first  allusion  to  it, 
which  occurred  on  the  occasion  of  St.  Peter's  great 
confession  at  CcTsarea  Pliilippi,  just  after  the  crisis 
when  the  majority  of  the  disciples  had  taken  oflence 
and  forsaken  Jesus,  and  when  His  enemies  had  de- 
termined to  sujDpress  His  work.  The  confession  of 
His  Messiahship  aftbrded  an  occasion  for  enlighten- 
ing the  faithful  few  on  a  terrible  secret  of  the 
future,  the  possibility  of  which  they  had  not  yet 
imagined,  because  they  could  now  bear  the  strain 
on  their  faith.  They  learnt  to  their  horror  that 
the  Christ,  whom  they  expected  to  redeem  Israel, 
"  must  suffer  many  things  "  and  "  be  killed  "  by  the 
chief  authorities  of  the  nation.  This  was  necessary. 
It  was  part  of  the  destined  mission  of  Christ.  Why 
it  was  necessary,  how  it  came  to  be  an  integral 
part  of  the  Messianic  mission,  Jesus  did  not  yet 
say.  But  it  was  much  simply  to  announce  that  it 
must  be. 

Once,  l;owev(>r,  and  quite  incidentally,  as  it  seems, 
when  rebuking  a  spirit  of  self-seeking  in  His 
disciples,  our  Lord  describes  His  death  as  a  ransom, 
saying,  "  Yerily  the  Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be 
ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  His 
life  a  ransom  for  many"   (Mark  x.  45). 

5 


66  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

Here  He  clearly  announces  a  purpose  in  the 
surrender  of  His  life.  He  gives  His  life.  He  could 
avoid  the  Cross,  but  will  not  do  so.  Thus  there  is 
a  voluntary  element  in  His  death.  It  is  not  suicide, 
for  He  does  not  take  His  own  life ;  but  He  will  not 
escape  death  at  the  cost  of  the  renunciation  of  His 
mission.  This  purpose  is  to  secure  some  good  to 
others,  to  "  many  " — a  word  which  does  not  point  to 
a  limitation,  as  though  it  were  carefully  distinguished 
from  "  all."  The  context  shows  that  the  contrast  is 
with  self  as  a  unit.  Further,  the  idea  of  "  ransom  " 
signifies  liberation  on  payment.  The  payment  is 
Christ's  life.  What  is  the  liberation?  It  is  going 
too  far  to  ask,  To  whom  is  the  payment  made  ?  for 
we  always  have  to  be  careful  not  to  press  the  details 
of  a  metaphor  beyond  the  point  of  comparison.  Still, 
some  bondage  is  clearly  suggested.  Elsewhere  Christ 
refers  to  death  as  a  power  from  which  men  seek 
to  be  freed  (Mark  viii.  36,  37);  in  St.  John  He 
distinctly  describes  the  slavery  of  man  to  sin  (John 
viii.  34) ;  and  in  the  Synoptics  He  frequently  speaks 
of  the  world  being  under  the  power  of  Satan  {e.g., 
Mark  iii.  15;  Luke  xiii.  16).  Therefore  presumably 
the  deliverance  will  be  from  some  such  evil — death, 
or  sin,  or  Satan.  Seeing  that  our  Lord  leaves  the 
phrase  open,  it  is  best  for  us  to  take  it  in  its  large 
comprehensiveness  to  mean  deliverance  from  all  evil 
— remembering  that  with  Christ  the  root  of  evil,  the 
one  real  evil,  is  sin.  Then  we  read  that  this  ransom 
is  "  instead  of'  (dvri)  many,  i.e.,  instead  of  the 
"  many  "  paying  it,  w hich  they  cannot  do ;  or  perhaps 
preferably   "  in    exchange   for   many,"  so    that  they 


THE  XEW  TESTA  ME  XT  67 

may  be  liberated  in  return  for  the  expenditure  of 
Christ's  life.  In  all  this  our  Lord  does  not  say  why 
it  is  necessary  for  Him  to  die  in  order  that  men 
may  be  set  free.     He  simply  states  the  fact. 

The  most  emphatic  teaching  on  the  connection 
between  our  redemption  and  the  death  of  Christ 
may  be  drawn  from  the  Lord's  Supper.  In  insti- 
tuting the  ordinance  Jesus  said,  according  to  St. 
Luke,  "  This  is  My  body,  which  is  given  for  you  " 
(Luke  xxii,  19),  or,  according  to  St.  Paul,  "This  is 
My  body,  which  is  for  you"  (1  Cor.  xi.  24).*  In 
both  cases  the  preposition  virlp  is  used — plainly 
teaching  that  Christ  was  giving  His  body,  i.e.,  giving 
Himself  up  to  death,  on  behalf  of  His  disciples,  for 
tlieir  benefit.  The  words  concerning  the  cup  are 
more  explicit.  According  to  the  two  first  Evan- 
gelists we  read,  "  This  is  My  blood  of  the  covenant "' 
(Matt.  xxvi.  28  ;  Mark  xiv.  24).  According  to  St. 
Luke  and  St.  Paul,  "  This  cup  is  the  new  covenant 
in  My  blood  "  (Luke  xxii.  20 ;  1  Cor.  xi.  25).  The 
reference  to  the  new  covenant  points  to  the  23ro23hecy 
of  Jeremiah  about  a  covenant  which  should  be  both 
more  merciful  in  its  provision  for  pardon  and  more 
inward  and  spiritual  in  its  principles  than  the  Levi- 
tical  law  (Jer.  xxxi.  31-4).  Just  such  a  covenant 
was  found  in  the  gospel  of  Christ,  with  its  large 
offer  of  forgiveness  on  God's  side  and  its  character 
of  inwardness  in  relation  to  human  experience;  and 
this   identity    was   recognised   in    the   early   Church 

*  Matthew  follows  Mark  in  giving  only  the  words  '•  This  is 
^ly  body,"  without  the  clause  added  in  Luke  and  1  Corinthians 
(Matt.  xxvi.  23  ;  Mark  xiv.  22). 


68  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

(Heb.  viii.  10-13).  The  association  of  blood  with 
the  new  covenant  is  evidently  founded  on  a  reference 
to  the  sacrifice  which,  according  to  the  Pentateuch, 
ratified  the  ancient  covenant,  M^hen  the  altar 
and  the  people  were  sprinkled  with  blood  (Exod. 
xxiv.  3-8).  Th\is  in  all  four  accounts  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  Jesus  Christ  attributes  a  sacrificial 
character  to  His  death.  The  narrative  in  Exodus 
shows  that  on  the  whole  the  analogy  is  that  of  the 
burnt-offering,  the  symbol  of  the  self-dedication 
of  the  worshipper.  The  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of 
tiiis  offering  was  the  ceremonial  dedication  of  the 
Jews  to  the  old  covenant;  the  taking  of  the  cup 
in  the  sacrament  is  the  similar  dedication  of 
Christians  to  the  new  covenant.  The  death  of  Christ 
ratifies  His  covenant,  and  the  participation  in  the 
cup  suggests  the  personal  share  of  the  communicant 
in  the  covenant  thus  ratified.  A  further  clause  of 
deep  significance  is  added  by  St.  Matthew — viz., 
"  unto  remission  of  sins  "  (Matt.  xxvi.  28).*  This 
plainly  states  that  the  death  of  Christ  is  designed 
to  lead  to  forgiveness.  It  has  been  objected  that 
the  clause  must  be  an  addition  by  the  Evangelist,  or* 
perhaps  a  result  of  reflection  in  the  Church,  because, 
it  is  said,  elsewhere  Christ  never  connects  His  death 
with  the  forgiveness  of    sin,  but  always  represents 

*  Eis  dcpea-iu  afiapTiCov — the  same  phrase  that  St.  Mark 
uses  to  characterise  John's  baptism  of  repentance  (Mark  i.  4)  ; 
not  that  there  is  any  ground  for  treating  these  as  two  rival 
methods.  On  man's  side  it  is  repentance  that  leads  to 
forgiveness  ;  on  Christ's  side  it  is  His  death  that  really  effects 
forgiveness. 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  69 

the  pardon  of  man  to  be  a  free  act  of  God's  fatherly 
love,  as,  for  example,  in  the  case  of  the  prodigal  son. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  was  expressly  declared  that 
Jeremiah's  new  covenant  was  to  be  a  covenant  of 
forgiveness  (Jer.  xxxi.  34).  Therefore,  to  ratify  that 
covenant  is  directly  to  lead  to  the  remission  of  &ins. 
Moreover,  Christ  often  claimed  to  bring  forgiveness ; 
and  we  have  seen  that  when  He  spoke  of  giving  His 
life  as  a  ransom  the  leading  thought  suggested  would 
be  that  of  deliverance  from  sin.  Accordingly,  even 
if  the  words  were  added  by  the  Evangelist  or 
his  predecessors,  they  would  be  entirely  in  harmou^ 
with  the  other  teaching  of  Christ.  Under  these 
circumstances,  and  considering  how  very  rare  are 
our  Lord's  references  to  His  death,  is  it  necessary 
to  resort  to  any  ingenious  expedient  to  account 
for  the  fact  that  one  of  those  instances  somewhat 
anticipates  the  line  of  later  apostoHc  teaching  ? 

One  more  lesson  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  relation 
to  redemption  may  be  noted  here.  The  eating  and 
drinking  by  the  communicants  suggest  a  personal  i3ar- 
ticipation  in  Christ  by  each  individual  Christian  as  the 
means  of  sustaining  his  very  life.  Here  we  approach 
ideas  more  fully  expanded  in  the  fourth  Gospel. 

Lastly,  it  cannot  be  without  some  weighty  bearings 
on  His  redeeming  work  that  our  Lord  predicted  His 
resurrection  (Mark  ix.  9,  10,  31  ;  x.  34),  for  the 
prediction  shows  His  prevision  of  victory,  and  a 
comparison  of  this  prediction  with  His  promises  of 
an  abiding  presence  may  lead  us  to  see  that  He 
legarded  His  resurrection  as  a  step  towards  His 
spiritual  indwelling  in  the  Church. 


70  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

Still,  keeping  to  the  teaching  of  Christ  alone,  we 
see  that  on  this,  as  on  other  subjects,  the  fourth 
Evangelist  agrees  with  the  main  positions  of  the 
Synoptics,  although  his  language  and  method  of 
treatment  vary  from  the  style  of  the  earlier  writers, 
especially  in  strongly  emphasising  the  significance 
of  the  person  of  our  Lord. 

The  importance  of  the  word  of  Christ  in  regard 
to  salvation  is  often  insisted  on  in  St.  John's  Gospel. 
The  first  step  towards  eternal  life  is  to  hear  this  w^ord 
(v.  24) ;  it  is  the  truth  revealed  by  Christ  that  is 
to  make  men  free  (viii.  32) ;  the  disciples  acknow- 
ledge that  He  has  the  words  of  eternal  life  (vi.  68). 

While  the  Synoptics  plainly  imply  that  Jesus  Christ 
Himself  is  the  centre  of  salvation — for  in  these  records 
He  appears  historically  as  the  living  Saviour — that 
great  truth  is  more  directly  stated  and  moi-e  fully 
described  in  the  fourth  Gospel.  Chap.  vi.  in  par- 
ticular sets  it  forth  with  startling  force.  Jesus  there 
declares  Himself  to  be  the  Bread  of  life,  and  announces 
that  if  any  man  eat  of  this  l)read  he  shalllive  for 
ever  (ver.  51),  Elsewhere,  in  the  same  Gospel,  He 
teaches  that  He  is  the  Light  of  the  world,  and  that 
the  way  to  avoid  walking  in  darkness  is  to  follow 
Him  (viii.  12),  When  He  is  lifted  up  from  the 
earth  He  will  draw  all  men  to  Himself  (xii.  32). 
The  person  of  Christ  is  the  object  of  faith  (ver.  46), 
and  to  reject  Him  is  to  come  under  the  condemnation 
of  God  (ver.  48).  He  concludes  His  last  discourse 
by  encouraging  His  disciples  to  be  of  good  cheei-, 
because  He,  their  Lord  and  Saviour,  has  overcome 
the  world  (xvi.  33). 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  71 

The  fourth  Gospel  gives  marked  prominence  to  our 
Lord's  death.  In  the  first  place  it  shows  that  Jesus 
foresaw  the  event,  and  also  the  necessity  for  it.  Thus, 
in  the  conversation  occasioned  by  the  information  that 
certain  Greeks  wished  to  see  Him,  lie  exclaimed, 
"  The  hour  is  come  that  the  Son  of  Man  should  be 
glorified.  .  .  .  Except  a  grain  of  wheat  fall  into  the 
earth  and  die,  it  abideth  by  itself  alone;  but  if  it  die, 
it  beareth  much  fruit"'  (xii.  23,  24).  This  appeal  to 
the  analogy  of  nature,  and  the  words  immediately 
following,  "  He  that  loveth  his  life  loseth  it,"'  etc., 
show  that  our  Lord  regarded  His  death  as  something 
in  accordance  with  a  general  principle  that  belongs 
to  the  constitution  of  nature,  and  that  should  be 
followed  by  men — \iz.,  that  death  is  necessary  to  life, 
that  fruitful  ser\TLce  depends  on  self-sacrifice.  Then 
Christ  said  that  He  had  authority  to  lay  down  His 
life  and  to  take  it  again  (x.  18).  Therefore  His 
death  was  not  unavoidable  ;  it  resulted  from  a  volun- 
tary course  of  action  on  His  part.  He  gave  Himself 
in  death.  Further,  the  object  of  this  surrender  of 
Himself  in  death  was  the  good  of  men.  He  was  the 
Good  Shepherd  laying  down  His  life  for  *  the  sheep 
(x.  11).  In  His  last  discourse  He  said  that  it  was 
expedient  for  the  disciples  that  He  should  go  away, 
for  if  He  did  not  go  away  the  Comforter  would  not 
come  (xvi.  7).  Thus  He  directly  connected  His 
death  with  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  is 

*  virep,  "  on  behalf  of."  ••  for  the  sake  of.'"  8t,  John  never 
uses  the  word  dirt,  '*  instead  of,"  which  we  have  met  with  in 
one  saying  recorded  by  Mark  and  Matthew  (Mark  x.  45  ; 
Matt.  XX.  28),  in  relation  to  the  death  of  Christ. 


72  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

elsewhere  referred  to  as  the  greatest  of  blessings. 
ThLs  is  a  thought  peculiar  to  the  fourth  Gospel. 
Lastly,  the  death  of  Christ  was  to  result  in  glory 
to  God  and  to  His  Son.  After  shrinking  from  the 
dark  prospect  He  braced  Himself  up  to  face  it 
with  the  thought  that  it  would  glorify  God's  name 
(xii.  27,  28).  He  often  referred  to  it  as  His  own 
glorification  {e.g.,  xii.  23 ;  xvii.  1). 

VI.  CONDITIONS  OF  MEMBERSHIP  IN 
THE   KINGDOM 

Although  the  open  proclamation  of  the  gospel  by 
Jesus  Christ  showed  that  its  privileges  were  free  to 
all  men,  other  of  our  Lord's  declarations  made  it  clear 
that  many  people  would  miss  the  enjoyment  of  them. 
This  fact  and  its  causes  are  illustrated  in  the  parable 
of  the  Sower,  which  describes  how  the  best  seed  will 
fail  if  it  falls  on  uncongenial  soil,  and  a  mournful 
confirmation  is  furnished  in  the  rejection  of  Jesus 
by  the  greater  part  of  His  hearers. 

Inasmuch  as  our  Lord  came  to  rule  over  a  spu-itual 
dominion  which  has  its  seat  in  the  will,  the  first 
condition  must  be  voluntary  acquiescence  on  the 
part  of  His  subjects.  Such  a  kingdom  as  this 
must  be  ''  received "  or  "  entered "  by  a  personal 
act.  Moreover,  many  people  may  covet  its  privi- 
leges and  yet  never  taste  them  (Luke  xiii.  24), 
because  a  bare  desire  to  enter  the  kingdom  is  not 
enough.  Certain  conditions  must  be  fulfilled.  These 
may  all  be  summed  up  in  the  idea  of  whole-hearted 
self-sun  ender. 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  73 

The  first  step  iu  this  self-surreDcler  is  the  renun- 
ciiition  of  sin.  Jesus  commenced  His  ministry  with 
the  Baptist's  appeal  to  repentance  (Mark  i.  15). 
Although  this  is  not  named  so  often  in  our  Lord's 
later  ministry  as  we  might  expect,  it  is  plainly 
impKed  throughout.  The  woman  known  as  "  a 
sinner,'  who  follows  our  Lord  to  the  Pharisee's 
house,  confesses  her  heartfelt  penitence  by  washing 
the  feet  of  Jesus  with  her  tears  (Luke  vii.  37,  38) ; 
Zacchaeus,  who  receives  salvation  into  his  house  in 
receiving  Christ,  restores  fourfold  to  those  whom  he 
has  wronged  by  extortion  (xix.  8);  the  publican 
at  the  temple  is  accepted  because  he  confesses  his 
sins,  while  the  Pharisee,  who  only  confesses  his 
virtues,  though  he  acknowledges  that  God  is  the 
source  of  them,  is  rejected  (xviii.  10-14).  Although 
the  religious  people  of  the  day  were  sceptical  of  the 
possibility  of  the  amelioration  of  corrupt  characters, 
Christ,  who  came  to  effect  a  complete  regeneration 
of  the  very  worst  among  them,  was  both  c^uick  to  dis- 
cover the  first  leaning  towards  a  better  life,  and  stern 
to  refuse  all  encouragement  where  this  was  nqt  to  be 
found,  even  in  decorous  people  who  were  not  conscious 
of  the  need  of  improvement.  His  keen  sense  of  the 
evil  of  sin  led  Him  to  extend  the  requirements  of 
repentance  in  two  directions.  The  first  was  in 
showing  the  universality  of  the  need  of  repentance. 
Jesus  did  not  come  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sinners — 
i.e.,  those  who  owned  to  sin  (Mark  ii.  17).  People 
who  were  ironically  allowed  the  name  of  righteous 
were  excluded  from  His  call  just  because  they  did 
not    admit    their    sinfulntss.      The  second    extension 


74  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

of  the  requirement  of  repentance  was  in  regard  to  its 
internal  character.  Christ  demanded  a  real  change 
of  mind  and  intention  (/xeravota),  while  the  external 
religion  of  His  day  was  satisfied  with  the  penance  of 
fasts  and  almsgiving.  In  this  demand  He  followed 
John  the  Baptist,  but  the  searching  character  of  His 
teaching  made  it  much  more  significant. 

It  has  been  remarked  that  faith  does  not  take  the 
prominent  position  in  the  teaching  of  Christ  which  it 
holds  in  the  Pauline  Epistles  ;  but  the  difference  is 
more  apparent  than  real,  and  it  may  be  accounted 
for  in  a  large  measure  by  the  more  concrete  method 
of  our  Lord's  teaching,  because,  though  He  does  not 
describe  the  relation  of  the  abstract  idea  "  faith  "  to 
discipleship  with  any  fulness,  His  whole  demeanour 
shows  how  much  He  expects  those  who  come  to  Him 
to  manifest  a  trustful  spirit  as  an  essential  condition 
of  being  received.  To  the  first  appeal,  "  Repent  ye," 
Jesus  immediately  adds,  "  and  believe  in  the  gospel." 
He  frequently  urges  His  disciples  to  believe  in  God. 
Faith  is  absolutely  necessary  for  those  who  would  be 
healed  by  Him.  The  cure  is  according  to  the  faith; 
and  when  faith  is  wanting — as  at  Nazareth — miracles 
are  impossible  (Mark  vi.  5).  Jesus  speaks  of  little 
ones  who  "  believe  on  "  Him  (ix.  42),  and  He  encour- 
ages His  disciples  to  ask  in  His  name  (Matt.  x.  22).  T 
Here  faith  is  not  the  acceptance  of  a  set  and  formal 
creed.  The  first  instance  gives  "  the  gospel  "  as  the 
object  of  faith.  In  all  other  cases  the  object  is  a 
person — God  or  Christ. 

On  the  other  hand,  our  Lord  repeatedly  insists  on 
the  importance  of  active  obedience.      He  concludes 


THE   NFAY  TESTAMENT  75 

J  lis  Sermon  on  the  Mount  with  the  parable  of  the 
Two  Houses :  that  on  the  rock  represents  every  one 
who  hears  His  words,  "  and  doeth  them  " ;  that  on  the 
sand  every  one  who  hears  them,  "  and  doeth  them 
not "  (Matt.  vii.  24-7).  He  owns  as  His  nearest 
relatives  all  who  do  the  will  of  God  (Mark  iii.  35). 
The  three  gi-eat  parables  of  judgment  in  Matt.  xxv. 
turn  on  questions  of  conduct.  But  the  obedience 
which  Christ  required  must  be  interpreted  in  harmony 
with  the  principles  of  His  revelation  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  and  of  the  new  covenant.  He  did  not 
bring  an  external  kingdom  and  a  law  of  the  letter- 
Ruling  in  the  heart  with  a  law  written  within,  He 
expected  obedience  in  the  form  of  a  full  submission 
of  the  will.  This,  then,  is  just  one  aspect  of  the 
self-surrender — it  is  self-surrender  in  action. 

To  the  disciples  who  asked  with  foolish  ambition, 
"  Who  then  is  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ? " 
Jesus  replied  by  setting  a  little  child  in  the  midst  of 
them,  and  saying.  "  Yerily  I  say  unto  you,  Except  ye 
turn  and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  in  no  wise 
^nter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  "  (Matt,  xviii.  3), 
thereby  teaching  that  childlikeness  is  an  essential 
condition  of  membership.  Just  as  the  child  had  no 
idea  of  seeking  a  place  of  honoui'  and  could  put  forth 
no  claim  for  such  a  position,  the  true  disciple  must 
approach  the  kingdom  with  no  appeal  to  the  history 
of  his  pre\'ious  achievements,  but  as  beginning  life 
afresh  with  a  child's  sense  of  helplessness  and  depend- 
ence. To  attain  this  childlike  state  even  good  men 
such  as  our  Lord's  chsciples  must  be  completely  turned 
round  {kov  /x?;  (TTpa<f)r]T€,  etc.). 


76  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

Next,  we  muat  note  that  our  Lord  used  sti'ong  and 
startling  words  on  the  subject  of  absolute  renunciation. 
Speaking  not  to  a  few  enthusiasts  eager  to  pursue 
a  course  of  superior  sanctity,  but  addressing  "  the 
multitude  "  as  well  as  "  His  disciples,"  Jesus  exclaimed, 
''  If  any  man  wishes  to  come  after  Me,  let  him  deny 
himself,  and  take  up  his  cross  and  follow  Me  "  (Mark 
viii.  34).  When  we  consider  the  mixed  character 
of  the  audience  in  connection  with  the  universal 
application  of  the  phrase  ''if  any  7nan  wishes"  (et 
Tts  BiXei),  it  is  evident  that  our  Lord  is  laying  down 
an  essential  conchtion  of  diseipleship,  not  a  counsel  of 
peifection.  Then  if  we  do  not  read  His  words  as  they 
are  emasculated  in  Christian  usage,  but  in  their 
original  strength,  we  see  that  they  mean  complete 
self -surrender.  The  self-denial  is  not  merely  sup- 
pressing some  desire  of  pleasure,  but  renouncing  self 
{d7raf)vr)(Td<T$o)  eavTov) — i.e.,  it  is  making  self  no  longer  a 
supreme  end.  The  cross-bearing  is  not  suffering  some 
inconvenience  :  to  put  it  in  modern  language,  it  is 
following  Christ  even  to  the  gallows.  This  is  a  con- 
dition of  discipleship  because  it  is  involved  in  the 
faithful  following  of  Christ.  Jesus  does  not  attribute 
any  merit  to  asceticism ;  on  the  contrary.  He  dis- 
courages it  (Matt.  xi.  19 ;  Mark  ii.  18,  19).  The 
self-abnegation  and  the  cross -bearing  are  not  to  be 
aspired  after  on  their  own  account ;  they  are  to 
be  accepted  as  incidental  to  the  supreme  aim  of 
following  Christ,  and  they  are  necessitated  by  the 
fact  that  He  renounced  all  self-seeldng  and  found 
His  mission  along  the  course  that  ended  in  crucifixion. 
Since  the  Christian  is  a  follower  of  Christ  he  cannot 


THE  NE}y  TESTAMENT  77 

avoid  the  Olirist-like  life  of  self-abnegation  ;•  he,  too, 
mnst  know  the  cross. 

Taken  by  themselves,  these  principles  must  incline 
us  to  regard  Christianity  as  a  pessimistic  religion. 
But  the  peculiar  glory  of  our  Lord's  teaching  and 
example  is  that  He  shows  that  the  way  of  the  Cross 
is  the  way  of  life  and  true  satisfaction.  A  man  is  to 
save  himself  by  renouncing  himself ;  he  is  to  find  his 
life  by  losing  it  (Mark  viii.  35).  This  is  the  secret  of 
Jesus. 

Along  these  lines  we  must  seek  for  the  interpreta- 
tion of  some  of  the  hardest  sayings  of  Christ.  In 
Luke  xiv.  26  our  Lord  is  reported  as  saying,  "  If  any 
man  eometh  unto  Me,  and  hateth  not  his  own  father, 
and  mother,  and  wife,  and  children,  and  brethren,  and 
sisters,  yea,  and  his  o^\ti  life  also,  he  cannot  be  My 
disciple."  This  phrase  is  softened  in  Matthew,  where 
it  reads,  "  He  that  loveth  father  or  mother  more  than 
Me  is  not  worthy  of  Me,"  etc.  (Matt.  x.  37).  If 
St.  Luke's  version  represents  the  original  words  of 
our  Lord,  St.  Matthew's  has  them  paraphrased  in  a 
correct  explanation.  Jesus  who  rebuked  the  prevalent 
excuses  for  disloyalty  to  the  fifth  commandment, 
could  not  have  meant  to  destroy  the  most  sacred 
natural  affections.  But  He  taught  that  no  earthly 
tie  should  interfere  with  the  supreme  duty  of  the 
Christian  life.  So  He  would  not  allow  one  new 
disciple  to  bid  farewell  to  his  fiiends,  although  He 
permitted  the  very  thing  in  the  case  of  Levi;  and 
He  even  rejected  the  request  of  another  for  permission 
to  perform  what  a  Jew  would  regard  as  a  supremely 
mportant  duty — the  burying  of  a  father  by  liis  son 


78  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

(Luke  ix.  59,  60),  because,  reading  their  hearts.  He 
knew  that  the  petitioners  were  only  offering  excuses 
for  not  making  a  whole-hearted  surrender  of  them- 
selves. The  rich  young  man  who  craves  the  inherit- 
ance of  eternal  life  has  not  done  enough  in  keeping 
the  commandments  from  his  youth.  There  is  one 
thing  he  lacks — viz.,  complete  self -surrender.  There- 
fore he  must  sell  all  he  has,  and  give  the  proceeds  to 
the  poor,  in  order  to  follow  Christ  (Mark  x.  17-22). 
Concerning  this  incident  it  may  be  remarked  that  the 
rule  of  poverty  is  laid  on  a  single  individual,  and  in 
answer  to  a  pressing  question  of  his  ;  it  is  not  a  part 
of  Christ's  general  teaching  in  discourses  to  the 
multitude  by  the  sea-shore,  or  in  His  instruction  of 
His  disciples  on  the  mount.  Many  disciples  of  Christ 
were  permitted  to  retain  their  ^property  without  a 
rebuke.  Possibly  his  wealth  was  a  peculiar  snare  to 
the  young  ruler — his  "  great  refusal  "  seems  to  indicate 
as  much.  Perhaps  he  was  to  have  been  honoured  like 
the  Apostles,  who  were  committed  to  the  life-work  of 
a  special  service  of  Christ,  for  which  they  forsook 
home  and  business,  although  other  Christians  were 
not  called  to  the  same  course.  At  all  events,  for 
him  the  total  renunciation  of  wealth  was  necessary. 
Therefore  not  to  make  it  was  to  renounce  the  hope  of 
eternal  life.  A  key  to  such  teachings  of  Christ  as 
these  incidents  contain  may  be  found  in  His  words 
about  the  eye,  or  hand,  or  foot,  that  is  to  be  plucked 
out  or  cut  off.  The  self-mutilation  is  to  take  place 
if  the  offending  member  causes  a  man  to  stumble 
(Mark  ix.  43-50).  With  this  condition  the  words  of 
Christ  may  be  taken  quite  literally ;  just  as  we  say 


THE   NFAV   TEf<TAMEXT  79 

a  mortifying  limb  miust  be  amputated  to  save  the 
body.  The  following  of  Christ  is  the  supreme  duty, 
and  it  contains  tlie  true  blessedness  of  the  Christian. 
Therefore  anything  that  interferes  with  this  must  be 
given  up.  The  primary  duty  is  self-surrender;  out 
of  this  flows  the  secondary  duty  of  making  a  par- 
ticular sacrifice  of  whatever  turns  out  to  be  incon- 
sistent with  the  self-surrender  in  individual  cases. 

Some  of  the  words  of  our  Lord  seem  to  imply  that 
the  pri\'ileges  of  the  kingdom  of  God  were  not  open 
to  all  classes  of  people.  Thus,  to  the  Syrophoenician 
woman  who  sought  the  cure  of  her  child,  He  spoke 
as  though  His  blessings  were  reserved  for  Jews 
(Mark  vii.  27).  Yet  it  is  not  true  to  the  history  to 
maintain  with  Pfleiderer  that  the  Christianity  of  Christ 
was  mainly  Jewish  in  its  outlook,  and  that  we  owe 
the  wider  range  of  cosmopolitan  Christianity  to  the 
influence  of  Greek  thought  in  St.  Paul  and  the 
Hellenists.  It  is  only  possible  to  accept  such  a  view 
by  means  of  an  arbitrary  mutilation  of  the  Gospel 
records.  The  Gentile  woman  had  what  she  sought. 
The  rejection  of  Christ  at  Nazareth  was  occasioned 
l)y  His  words  about  the  preference  of  Gentiles  to 
Jews  (Luke  iv.  25-9).  He  had  not  found  such  faith 
in  Israel  as  in  that  of  a  Roman  centurion  (vii.  9). 
His  type  of  true  neighboui-liness  is  in  a  good 
Samaritan.  Only  a  preconceived  theory  can  lead  to 
the  rejection  of  these  things  from  the  life  of  Christ. 
They  are  wholly  in  accordance  with  His  acknowledged 
spirit  of  love  and  brotherHness  in  welcoming  publicans 
and  sinners,  although  it  is  still  apparent  that  His 
immediate,  personal    mission    was    to    Jews.      Then 


80  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

St.  Luke's  Gospel  has  been  denominated  "  Ebionite," 
because  of  the  favour  for  the  poor  and  the  hard  words 
about  the  rich  which  it  contains.  But  the  two  first 
Gospels  have  much  in  common  with  it  in  this  respect, 
and  record  the  difficulty  of  a  rich  man's  entrance  into 
the  kingdom  of  God.  Yet  not  one  of  the  three  re- 
cords is  conceived  in  a  spirit  of  positive  animosity  to 
rich  men.  It  is  rather  that  they  are  commiserated 
for  their  difficulties.  These  are  on  their  side,  not 
Christ's.  When  the  Apostles  ask  in  their  amazement, 
"  Who  then  can  be  saved  ?  "  Jesus  replies,  "  With  men 
it  is  impossible,  but  not  with  God  :  for  all  things  are 
possible  with  God  "  (Mark  x.  26,  27) — i.e.,  even  rich 
men  can  be  saved  by  the  almighty  power  of  God. 

Again,  our  Lord  thanks  God  that  the  mysteries  of 
the  kingdom  are  hidden  from  the  wise  and  under- 
standing, and  revealed  to  babes  (Luke  x.  21).  We 
may  compare  this  with  St.  Paul's  record  of  his  mis- 
sionary expeiience  that  "  not  many  wise  after  the 
flesh"  are  called  (1  Cor.  i.  26).  But  that  Christ 
absolutely  refused  His  gospel  to  people  of  intelligence 
is  not  to  be  supposed.  There  were  such  among  His 
disciples.  His  language  is  partly  ironical.  Some 
were  too  wise  in  their  own  conceits  to  leai-n  of  Him. 
Then  it  was  good  news  for  the  multitude  that  His 
richest  truths  were  put  within  the  reach  of  the  un 
learned  and  simple.  Lastly,  His  requirement  that 
His  disciples  should  turn  and  become  as  little  children 
pointed  out  the  way  by  which  "  the  wise "  might 
participate  in  the  privileges  of  His  gospel. 

Jesus  deplored  that  while  many  were  called  few 
were  chosen  (Matt.  xxii.   14).     The   parable  of  the 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  81 

Sower  shows  why  in  so  many  cases  the  call  was 
ineffectual.  This  is  brought  out  still  more  clearly  in 
the  pai-able  of  the  Marriage  Feast.  The  invitation 
is  to  the  many,  the  banquet  is  abundant ;  but  those 
who  were  first  invited  invent  excuses  for  staying 
away.  Both  parables  make  it  evident  that  the  fault 
is  on  man's  side. 

But  our  Lord  sometimes  spoke  as  though  He  had 
a  deliberate  intention  of  hiding  His  truths  from  the 
majority  of  His  hearers  (Mark  iv.  11,  12).  This  could 
not  have  been  with  the  sole  object  of  kee]3ing  them 
in  the  dark,  because  in  that  case  He  might  have 
refrained  from  all  public  utterances.  He  evidently 
desired  to  sift  the  multitude,  so  as  to  separate  tli6 
earnest  souls  from  the  indifferent.  All  who  would 
listen  sympathetically  could  learn  His  deepest  truths, 
for  we  can  scarcely  regard  the  private  training  o'f  the 
Apostles  as  a  purely  esoteric  instruction  strictly 
reserved  for  the  initiated,  because  Jesus  uttered  most 
of  His  loftiest  ideas  in  public.  The  secret  of  His 
teaching  would  be  missed  by  uncongenial  spu-its,  not 
because  of  His  reticence,  but  simply  on  account  of 
their  moral  obliquity.  »Still,  a  quotation  from  Isaiah 
(Isa.  vi.  9)  and  our  Lord's  own  language  imply  a 
deliberate  intention  that  such  people  should  Rot 
receive  the  teaching.  The  action  of  Christ  here 
must  be  considered  side  by  side  with  His  repeated 
expressions  of  a  generous  desire  to  welcome  all 
who  truly  submit  to  Him,  and  in  the  light  of  His 
distress  at  the  failure  of  those  who  rejected  His 
message  at  Chorazin,  Bethsaida,  and  Capernaum 
(Luke   X.    13,    15),    and,    above    all,    at     Jerusalem 

6 


82  TEE  THEOLOGY  OF 

(xiii.  34).  The  justification  seems  to  be  that  those 
who  were  unwilling  to  follow  His  teaching,  and  who 
therefore  could  not  benefit  by  a  barely  intellectual 
understanding  of  its  deeper  mysteries,  ought  not  to 
be  allowed  to  profane  those  mysteries,  because  the 
profanation  Avould  injure  them  Mhile  it  dishonoured 
Him. 

Among  the  conditions  stated  in  the  fourth  Gospel 
most  emphasis  is  laid  on  the  new  birth,  which  here 
takes  the  place  of  repentance  in  the  Synoptics  as 
the  first  step,  although  it  is  a  deeper  experience.  In 
harmony  with  the  general  teaching  of  this  Gospel  the 
idea  of  birth  is  not  merely  concerned  with  a  change 
of  thought  and  intention  ;  it  points  to  the  beginning 
of  a  new  life.  While  repentance  presents  itself  as  a 
change  on  man's  part,  the  new  birth  has  its  origin  in 
God.  The  general  usage  of  the  Greek  word  ovmOcv  * 
in  the  New  Testament  suggests  that  it  should  be 
translated  "  from  above,"  and  that  the  words  of 
Christ  should  read,  "  Except  a  man  be  born  from 
above  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God "  (John 
iii.  3).  The  birth  is  plainly  Divine  in  its  origin, 
for  its  source  is  the  Holy  S2:)irit — it  is  "  that  which 
is  born  of  the  Spirit."  In  reference  to  this  event 
Christ  refers  to  the  free  and  mysterious  movement 
of  the  Spirit  of  God,  coming  invisibly,  we  know  not 
how,  like  the  wind.  Thus  the  first  condition  is 
associated  with  the  work  of  the  Spirit. 

A  more  prominent  position  is  assigned  to  faith 
here  than  in  the  Synoptics,  and  its  deeper  character 
is  revealed.  It  is  also  now  more  closely  associated 
*  See  John  xix.  11,  23  ;  Gal.  iv.  9 ;  James  i.  17,  iii.  15. 


THE  XEir  TESTAMENT  83 

with  Christ  Himself.  The  Son  of  Man  must  be  lifted 
up,  "that  whosoever  believeth  may  in  Jlim  have 
eternal  life"  (iii.  15).  In  the  discourse  "on  the 
bread  of  life  Jesus  identifies  faith  in  Him  with 
eating  His  flesh.  Thus  in  one  place  He  says,  "  He 
that  believeth  hath  eternal  life "  (vi.  47),  and  in 
another,  "  He  that  eateth  My  flesh  and  drinketh  My 
blood  hath  eternal  life"  (vi.  54).  The  parallelism  of 
the  two  exjDressions  should  not  lead  us  to  weaken 
the  force  of  the  second,  but  rather  to  give  a  deeper 
meaning  to  the  first  than  we  should  otherwise  assign 
to  it,  because  the  w^hole  current  of  our  Lord's 
language  is  directed  to  the  end  of  our  realising  living 
relations  with  Himself  as  the  food  of  eternal  life. 
Thus  faith  is  seen  to  be  a  personal  approjDriation  of 
Jesus  Christ.  Our  Loixl's  words  anticiiDate  the  ideas 
which  underlie  the  Lord's  Supper.  That  feast  in  the 
Synoptics  illustrates  to  the  eye  what  the  discourse  of 
Christ  in  St.  John  explains  to  the  mind. 

It  w^ould  seem  that  the  limitations  of  discipleship 
are  stronger  in  the  fourth  Gospel  than  they  are  in 
the  Synoptics.  Christ  has  all,  to  whom  it  is  given 
by  His  Father  (vi.  65),  which  implies  that  others 
have  not  the  gift  and  therefore  cannot  be  included 
in  the  fold.  In  controversy  with  the  Jews  He 
contrasts  the  children  of  the  devil  with  the  children 
of  Abraham  and  of  God  (viii.  39,  44,  47).  But  we 
have  seen  already  *  that  our  Lord's  utterances  on  this 
subject  are  associated  with  blame  for  those  whom  He 
characterises  with  so  much  apparent  harshness.  It 
was  their  own  conduct  that  had  brought  them  into 
*  Page  4<J. 


84  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

this  deplorable  state.  They  had  sinned  with  open  eyes. 
If  they  had  been  blind,  they  would  have  been  excused 
(ix.  41).  Moreover,  there  is  no  ground  for  thinking 
that  Jesus  considered  their  condition  to  be  hopeless. 
Had  He  thought  so,  would  it  not  have  been  usele.ss 
for  Him  to  argue  with  them  ?  And  does  not  His 
treatment  of  them  show  that  He  was  trying  to 
reach  their  consciences  ?  This  is  very  different  from 
the  Gnostic  idea  of  two  orders  of  men  for  ever 
distinguished  by  nature  and  fate. 


YII.    THE  NEW  ETHICS 

By  far  the  greater  part  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus 
Christ  recorded  in  the  Gospels  was  devoted  to  the 
practical  guidance  of  His  disciples  in  the  conduct  of 
life  along  the  path  that  He  was  also  indicating  by 
His  own  example.  He  took  no  interest  in  the 
elaboration  of  dogma  or  the  performance  of  ritual. 
The  strength  of  His  mind  and  soul,  His  pregnant 
thought  and  regal  will,  all  the  passion  of  His  enthu- 
siasm and  all  the  tire  of  His  indignation,  were 
expended  on  the  behavioiu'  of  men  and  women 
towards  God  and  their  neighbours.  Nevertheless, 
when  torn  out  of  their  place  in  the  circle  of  His 
instruction,  the  pure  ethics  of  the  Gospels  may  seem 
to  consist  of  quite  unattainable,  though  most  beautiful, 
counsels  of  perfection.  It  is  only  while  they  are 
taken  in  their  right  bearings  as  laws  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  that  they  can  be  accepted  as  immediately 
practicable.      Jesus  did   not  propose  the  precepts  of 


THE   XEW  TESTAMENT  85 

the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  to  the  Jews'  Sanhedrim 
or  the  Roman  Senate.  Evidently  they  would  not 
work  in  an  unchristian  society,  and  they  were  never 
offered  to  any  such  community.  They  were  given 
to  the  disciples  in  a  retreat  apart  from  the  miscel- 
laneous crowd  of  sightseers  who  flocked  to  witness 
the  miracles  (see  Matt.  v.  1).  They  only  admit  of 
being  embodied  in  the  social  order  of  any  nation  in 
proportion  as  the  population  has  already  become 
Christian.  Law\s  of  the  kingdom  of  God  can  be  put 
in  operation  just  so  far  as  the  kingdom  is  dominant, 
and  no  farther.  \ye  must  bear  in  mind  this  qualifi- 
cation of  their  scope  and  range  as  we  proceed  to 
examine  the  details  of  the  new  ethics  introduced  by 
our  Lord. 

It  was  the  peculiar  mission  of  the  prophets  of  Israel 
to  insist  on  the  intimate  union  of  religion  and  right- 
eousness in  contrast  to  the  common  practices  of  her 
neighbours,  among  whom  the  cult  of  the  gods  was 
divorced  from  morality.  In  the  days  of  our  Lord  the 
Pharisees  profe^-sed  to  maintain  this  mission,  and  they 
scornfully  condemned  the  Sadducean  priests  who  were 
satisfied  with  the  temple  ritual  to  the  neglect  of  the 
personal  demands  of  the  law.  But  the  Pharisees 
themselves  were  really  the  greatest  offenders  in  setting 
up  an  artificial  standard  that  was  only  a  screen  for 
the  neglect  of  real  righteousness.  Now  Jesus  recovers 
the  position  of  the  prophets,  and  advances  beyond  it. 

He  shows  that  our  highest  duty  is  that  owed  to 
God,  for  the  first  commandment  is  to  love  God  intel- 
ligently and  strongly  (Mark  xii.  30).  This  duty  had 
been  prescribed  in  the  old  law ;  and  here,  as  in  other 


86  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

matters,  our  Lord's  originality  did  not  involve  a  formal 
bi-each  with  the  past.     Even  an  inquiring  scribe  knew 
of  the  supreme  duty  (Luke  x.  27).     But  Christ  gave 
it  a  new  prominence  and  a  much  deeper  meaning. 
From  Him  it  comes  to  us  clothed  in  all  the  force  and 
beauty  of  His  revelation  of  the  Father.     Now  out  of 
this  fundamental  obligation  certain  great  requirements 
flow — supreme  among  them,  and  comprehending  all 
others,  that  of  doing  God's  will.     For  Christ  Himself 
the  will  of  God  is  the  only  law  of  life ;  in  realising  His 
ideal  as  our  exemplar  He  presents  a  picture  of  abso- 
lute obedience  to  God.     The  sole  condition  on  which  He 
consents  to  recognise  any  people  as  His  near  relatives 
is  that  they  too  do  God's  will.     In  His  model  prayer 
He  puts  the  honour  of  God,  the  coming  of  the  Divine 
kingdom,  and  the  doing  of  God's  will  on  earth  before 
any    thoughts    of    personal    need.       He    deprecates 
anxiety  about  temporal  affairs,  not  so  much  because 
this  is  irksome  to  us,  but  rather,   as   He  expressly 
says,  because   it  hinders  us  in  the  pursuit  of  "the 
kingdom  of  God  and  His  righteousness  "  (Matt.  vi.  33). 
His  beautiful  exhortations  to  trust  in  the  providential 
goodness  of  God  are  directly  deduced  from  His  stern 
declaration  that  "  No  man  can  serve  two  masters." 
It  is   immediately  after   saying    "  Ye   cannot   serve 
God    and    mammon,"    that    He   adds,    "  Therefore  I 
say  unto   you,    Be   not    anxious  for  your  life,"  etc. 
(vi.    24,   25).      Conversely,  sin  is  a  personal  offence 
against  God.      The  prodigal   son    confesses    that   he 
has  sinned   "  against  heaven  "  as  well  as  before  his 
father  (Luke  xv.   18). 

Another  great  characteristic  of  the  ethics  of  Christ 


THE   XEW   TESTAMENT  87 

is  supplied  by  tlieir  positive  spirit.  The  requirements 
of  Hie  casuistry  prevalent  in  the  days  of  our  Lord 
were  for  the  most  part  negati\e.  Even  the  decalogue 
consists  chiefly  of  prohibitions ;  and  later  Judaism 
far  exceeded  the  written  law  in  its  restrictions,  while 
it  relaxed  the  requirements  of  the  great  active  duties. 
Thus  to  keep  oneself  from  defilement  was  the  leading 
aim  of  PharisaLsm.  Our  Lord  was  blamed  for  His 
indifference  to  this  question  of  purification.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  His  indifference  only  extended  to 
foolish  ceremonial  forms,  and  did  not  relate  to  real 
contamination.  But  in  His  treatment  of  moral 
questions  He  was  not  satisfied  with  demanding 
abstinence  fi'om  evil.  He  was  much  more  concerned 
with  the  doing  of  good.  This  was  the  rule  of  His 
own  life.  He  was  described  by  St.  Peter  as  One  who 
"went  about  doing  good  "'  (Acts  x.  38).  An  immaculate 
saint  who  never  worked  for  the  ser\dce  of  God  and 
man — if  such  a  person  existed — would  come  under 
our  Lords  most  severe  censure.  Thus  the  man  who 
is  represented  as  building  on  the  sand  is  not  chai-ged 
with  any  offence  :  his  life  ends  in  ruin  simply  because 
he  fails  to  do  what  Christ  requires.  Dives  is  tormented 
))y  the  flames  of  Gehenna  for  no  act  of  cruelty  to 
Lazarus,  but  it  would  seem  solely  for  neglecting  to 
assist  his  miserable  neighbour  with  the  wealth  which 
he  squandered  on  his  own  luxuiies.  In  the  great 
parables  of  judgment  the  foolish  virgins,  the  man  of 
one  talent,  and  the  people  who  are  set  on  the  left 
hand  of  the  Judge  are  none  of  them  accused  of  any 
transgression  :  in  every  case  the  fault  is  the  neglect 
of  some  positive  action,     The  Samaritan  who  showed 


88  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

kindness  to  a  fellow-man  in  need  is  a  typical  example, 
in  contrast  to  a  priest  and  a  Levite  to  whom  no  vice 
is  attributed.  Clearly  the  drift  of  Christ's  exhorta- 
tions is  all  in  the  direction  of  active  service.  His 
people  are  compared  to  labourers  hired  to  work  in  a 
vineyard,  stewards  entrusted  with  responsible  func- 
tions, traders  expected  to  invest  the  money  of  a 
capitalist — not  idle  ascetics  secluded  from  all  con- 
tamination. 

Nevertheless,  no  teaching  of  our  Lord  is  more 
striking  or  more  original  than  His  repeated  insist- 
ence on  the  truth  that  good  and  evil  are,  primarily, 
concerns  of  the  interior  life.  This  was  of  first  im- 
portance in  opposition  to  the  hypocrisy  of  a  religion 
of  superficial  pretences  and  barren  forms — a  religion 
that  consisted  in  ostentatious  prayers,  fasts,  and  alms- 
giving apart  from  spiritual  worship,  contrition,  and 
brotherly  kindness.  Here  the  preaching  of  Christ 
most  heavily  assailed  the  apparent  goodness  of  the 
most  respected  people  of  His  day.  But  it  contained 
more  than  the  indignant  denunciation  of  shams  and 
lies  which  any  true  prophet  such  as  Amos  or  Isaiah 
would  have  uttered.  Jesus  immediately  enlarges  the 
value  of  the  life  within.  He  goes  back  from  deeds  to 
words,  from  words  to  thoughts,  from  separate  thoughts 
to  the  life  out  of  which  they  spring.  Men  are  to  be 
judged  for  every  idle  word  (Matt.  xii.  36).  Hatred 
and  lust  are  treated  as  murder  and  adultery,  be- 
cause the  crime  is  in  the  intention  (vers.  21-32). 
Swearing  is  forbidden  (vers.  33-7),  because  it  treats 
the  obligation  of  truth-speaking  as  external  and 
variable,    since    it    implies    that    without    the   oath 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  89 

veracity  would  not  be  expected.*  The  charity,  purity, 
and  truthfulness  which  Christ  requires  are  all  re- 
garded as  products  of  the  interior  life ;  and  so  are 
their  opposite  sins ;  "  Out  of  the  heart  proceed  "  all 
kinds  of  evil  things  (Mark  vii.  21).  Therefore  defile- 
ment is  from  within — i.e.,  it  is  not  got  by  bodily 
contact  ^vith  what  is  unclean,  but  produced  by  the 
outflowing  of  unclean  thoughts  and  w^ords  and  deeds 
from  an  unclean  heart.  Prayer,  fasting,  and  alms- 
gi\ing  are  to  be  practised  in  secret,  lest  the  public 
show  of  them  should  lead  to  hypocrisy.  Jesus  was 
accustomed  to  retire  to  the  solitude  of  the  mountains 
for  His  own  private  prayer,  and  He  modestly  checked 
the  spreading  fame  of  His  miracles  as  though  it 
pained  Him.  In  particular  two  great  reasons  for 
the  severity  of  this  principle  of  inwardness  are 
supplied. 

The  first  is  found  in  the  penetrating  vision  of  God, 
who  sees  in   secret.     It  implies  that  Clod's  view  of 

*  It  must  be  remembered  that  we  are  here  concerned  with 
laws  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  not  with  the  regulations  of  a 
police-court.  If  a  civil  state  which  has  not  yet  reached  the 
level  of  Christ's  legislation  imposes  oaths,  our  Lord's  example 
in  submitting  to  the  adjuration  of  the  high-priest  shows  that 
acquiescence  is  not  forbidden.  In  condemning  swearing, 
Jesus  was  not  coDtemplating  this  situation.  He  was  repro- 
bating the  habit  of  taking  oaths  in  every-day  life.  Undoubt- 
edly this  was  the  primary  aim  of  His  words.  The  absoluteness 
of  the  prohibition  seems  to  go  farther,  however.  Here  is  a 
law  of  the  kingdom.  When  the  kingdom  is  universally  estab- 
lished, even  the  judicature  will  be  able  to  dispense  with  the 
coarse  expedient  of  obtaining  evidence  on  oath.  Many  think 
that  it  would  be  a  more  Christian  course  to  abandon  it  at  once, 
while  imposing  the  penalty  of  perjury  on  false  witnessing. 


90  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

our  conduct  is  of  supreme  importance,  although  that 
is  precisely  what  people  who  "study  appearances" 
ignore.  In  His  own  actions  our  Lord  showed 
Himself  blankly  indifferent  to  the  blame  of  men. 
Criticised  adversely  by  the  i-eligious  orthodoxy  of  His 
day,  He  remained  pei-fectly  serene,  because  He  was 
assured  that  His  Father  Avas  "well  pleased"  with 
Him,  and  that  was  all  the  approval  He  cared  for. 

The  other  ground  for  the  rigour  of  the  principle 
of  inwardness  lies  in  the  very  constitution  of  nature. 
The  quality  of  the  fruit  is  determined  by  the  quality 
of  the  tree.  You  must  first  make  the  tree  good  if 
you  would  have  good  fruit  (Luke  vi.  43,  44). 

Stern  as  this  principle  is  in  its  intensity,  when 
regarded  extensively  it  is  seen  to  introduce  a  large 
and  gracious  liberty.  Jesus  moved  in  a  free  atmo- 
sphere. He  snapped  the  cords  of  the  precisionisfcs, 
and  trampled  down  theii'  carefully  trimmed  hedges. 
He  also  liberated  His  disciples  from  external  restraints 
on  the  plain  condition  that  they  were  to  be  guided 
by  internal  motives.  Thus  the  irksome  details  of 
casuistry  are  quite  foreign  to  the  ethics  of  Christ. 
The  Christian  is  to  be  governed  by  principle,  not 
by  rule ;  and  therefore  He  must  become  a  law  to 
himself.  Inasmuch  as  it  was  the  method  of  Christ 
to  teach  by  concrete  examples,  He  seems  to  lay  down 
definite  lines  of  conduct  for  individual  cases.  But 
it  would  be  contrary  to  His  intention  to  apply  His 
words  with  pedantic  literalness.  Even  of  these  words 
it  must  be  said  that  the  bare  letter  kills,  while  it  is 
tlie  spirit  of  them  that  gives  life. 

On  tlie  other  hand,  while  our  Lord's  teachinsr  is 


THE   XEW  TESTAMENT  91 

individualistic  in  regard  to  the  springs  and  sources 
of  conduct,  because  it  directs  attention  to  the  secret 
recesses  of  the  soul,  to  -'the  abysmal  depths  of  per- 
sonality," and  while  it  starts  from  personal  life  and 
character,  its  outlook  and  aim  are  distinctly  social. 
The  Christian  is  not  to  regard  himself  as  a  solitary 
unit ;  nor  is  he  to  spend  his  strength  in  the  cultivation 
of  his  own  well-being.  He  is  a  member  of  a  society ; 
nay,  one  of  a  family.  The  Fatherhood  of  God  neces- 
sarily leads  to  the  brotherhood  of  man.  Therefore 
conduct  cannot  be  determined  with  regard  to  abstract 
ideas  of  goodness  alone :  it  must  be  shaped  and 
governed  according  to  its  influence  on  society.  This 
is  the  key  to  some  of  the  most  striking  sayings  of 
Christ  which,  considered  by  themselves,  sound  extra- 
vagant and  unreasonable. 

It  is  a  highly  significant  fact  that  when  our  Loi-d 
had  answered  the  question  as  to  which  was  the 
greatest  commandment  by  quoting  that  which  re- 
quires a  supreme  love  of  God,  He  volunteered  to 
add  tlie  second :  "  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour 
as  thyself."  Jesus  developed  the  teaching  of  this  old 
precept  in  three  respects  : — 

1.  He  gave  it  a  new  emphasis.  He  brought  it 
into  the  light,  and  set  it  before  men  as  the  ruling 
principle  of  their  conduct  in  dealing  one  Tvdth  another. 
This  He  did  in  clear  words,  but  more  vividly  in  almost 
every  deed  of  His  life.  Living  entirely  for  others, 
He  set  the  pattern  of  the  Christian  life. 

2.  He  enlarged  the  notion  of  the  neighbour.  To 
the  question  "Who  is  my  neighbour?"  He  replies 
by  giving  the  parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan,  whicli 


92  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

shows  that  the  idea  of  neighbourliness  is  not  to  be 
limited  by  national  distinctions — as  the  most  culti- 
vated Athenians  had  held ;  nor  by  religious  diflferences 
— as  the  most  pious  Jews  taught ;  nor  by  ignorance 
and  strangeness — as  the  world  still  holds  ;  nor  indeed 
by  any  conceivable  limit.  The  Samaritan  sees  a  stray 
Jew  in  need,  and  helps  him.  That  is  neighbourliness. 
It  is  our  duty,  then,  to  love  all  men  whom  we  may 
happen  to  come  across,  and  to  show  kindness  to 
strangers  and  aliens  as  well  as  to  acquaintances  and 
comrades ;  in  national  affairs  to  treat  the  rights  of 
foreigners  and  people  of  very  different  civilisations 
with  as  much  consideration  as  we  would  give  to  our 
own  interests. 

3.  Christ  pointed  out  the  effects  of  this  love  to 
one's  neighbour.  Ilis  golden  rule,  "  As  ye  would  that 
men  should  do  to  you,  do  ye  also  to  them  likewise" 
(Luke  vi.  31),  was  just  the  same  principle  shaped  for 
practical  application.  The  idea  of  love  must  not  be 
allowed  to  evaporate  in  an  idle  sentiment.  It  must 
manifest  itself  in  conduct,  in  what  we  do.  Our  Lord 
showed  the  working  of  this  principle  in  illustrative 
examples.  Thus  it  is  seen  in  hospitality.  The  principle 
of  loving  one's  neighbour  as  oneself  must  break  down 
the  exclusiveness  of  society.  To  invite  guests  who 
will  make  an  adequate  return  is  not  the  height  of 
hospitality.  The  Christian  host  will  invite  the  poor 
who  cannot  pay  for  their  meal  by  the  polite  method 
of  giving  another  meal.  The  same  principle  is  more 
manifest  in  the  generosity  that  helps  the  needy. 
Instead  of  refusing  aid  to  people  in  difficulties,  or 
only  lending  to  them  with  a  hope  of  receiving  our 


THE    XEW    TESTAMEXT  93 

money  back  again,  the  neighbourly  act  is  to  give  to 
them  outright,  and  to  expect  no  recompense — although 
the  gift  may  be  denominated  a  loan  to  spare  the 
feelings  of  the  recipient  (ver.  34).  Christ  spent  His 
own  life  in  healing  the  sick  and  helping  the  sufter- 
ing  out  of  pure  compassion.  Then  the  suppression 
of  revenge  is  anothei-  application  of  the  golden  rule. 
Evidently  this  is  what  our  Lord  means  by  His  clear, 
strong  utterances  in  recommendation  of  non-resistance. 
To  let  the  robber  take  the  coat  as  well  as  the  cloak, 
and  to  turn  the  left  cheek  to  one  who  has  smitten 
the  right  cheek,  are  the  very  opposites  of  revenge. 
Such  actions  appear  absurd  and  preposterous  until  we 
have  realised  the  inspiring  principle  of  neighboui-ly 
love  which  lies  behind  them.  The  Christian  is  to 
treat  his  assailant  as  a  man  wdiom  he  loves  as  him- 
self. Jesus  taught  this  lesson  by  His  own  behaviour, 
when  under  insult  and  outrage  He  submitted  patiently 
and  was  "  led  as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter,"  because  He 
was  suffering  for  the  good  of  those  who  ill-used  Him. 
The  duty  of  forgiveness  goes  beyond  that  of  passive 
non-resistance,  since  it  requires  us  to  welcome  the 
offender  to  our  friendship.  Such  an  act  is  necessarily 
limited  by  the  preliminary  i-equirement  of  repentance 
and  confession  (Luke  xvii.  4).  But  Avhen  that  con- 
dition is  fulfilled  the  duty  is  to  forgive  ungrudgingly 
and  repeatedly — seventy  times  seven  times,  if  as  many 
occasions  arise  (Matt,  xviii.  22).  Lastly,  there  is  the 
duty  of  holding  charitable  opinions.  The  disciple  of 
Christ  is  not  to  judge  others  (vii.  1).  He  is  not  to 
concern  himself  with  the  officious  interference  of  point- 
ing out  the  mote  in  his  brother's  eye  wLile  a  beam  is  in 


94  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

his  own  eye.  He  is  rather  to  look  to  his  own  fault, 
and  to  discover  that  his  censorious  spii'it  is  far  worse 
than  the  slight  defect  he  is  pharisaically  blaming  in 
his  brother. 

Our  Lord,  who  had  no  faults  of  His  own  to  amend, 
affords  us  the  highest  possible  example  of  kindness  to 
foes  by  praying  for  His  enemies  on  the  cross,  and  by 
even  dj-ing  for  the  world  that  rejected  Him.  If 
the  Christian  is  to  be  the  follower  of  Christ,  he  must 
imitate  most  closely  that  which  is  most  characteristic 
of  his  Leader — i.e..  the  conduct  which  renders  good  for 
evil,  even  in  the  most  supreme  sacrifice  of  self.  This 
conduct  is  primarily  related  to  individuals.  A  man 
is  to  love  his  neighbour,  not  merely  his  Church,  his 
nation,  or  mankind.  He  is  to  regard  himself  as  a 
member  of  a  community,  and  to  arrange  his  conduct 
in  view  of  his  social  relations ;  but  his  aim  is  not  that 
of  the  Greek  patriot — to  exalt  his  city ;  nor  that  of 
the  Jew — to  advance  his  race ;  nor  that  of  the  eccle- 
siastic— to  glorify  his  Chiu'ch  :  he  is  a  brother  who 
is  expected  to  study  the  welfare  of  the  other  membei-s 
of  God's  family,  and  not  perpetrate  that  absurdit}^  of 
ancient  politics  and  mediaeval  ecclesiasticism — the 
sacrificing  of  men  and  women  to  tlie  idol  of  an 
abstraction. 

Nevertheless,  here  too  we  may  notice  the  germinal 
ideas  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.  One  of  these 
is  social  Christianity.  The  word  iKKXyja-ia  is  twice 
ascribed  to  Christ — in  the  first  case  standing  for  a 
definite  local  community  (Matt,  xviii.  17),  and  in  the 
second  used  with  reference  to  the  whole  body  of 
Christicins  (xvi.  18).     It  has  l^een  questioned  whether 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  95 

this  Greek  word  is  the  correct  rendering  of  onr  Lord's 
Aramaic  phrase.  But  the  doubt  is  not  of  great 
moment.  While  the  Christians  had  not  yet  broken 
with  Judaism,  while  they  were  still  worshipping  in  the 
temple  and  in  their  local  synagogues,  they  could  not 
have  been  formed  into  a  separate  ecclesiastical  com- 
munity. Moreover,  until  Christ  had  led  them  into 
some  clear  conception  of  His  truth  they  had  not  the 
materials  for  Church  order  and  life.  But  the  new 
condition  did  not  come  suddenly  into  being.  The 
Church  was  a  growth  out  of  the  earlier  condition 
of  cUscipleship.  This  development  was  necessaiy. 
Christianity  is  essentially  social,  because  it  is  brotherly. 
Christ  draws  His  followers  together  in  drawing  them 
to  Himself,  because  thereby  He  infuses  in  them  His 
own  brotherly  spirit.  Thus  when  He  was  removed 
it  was  natural  that  they  should  meet  together  as 
members  of  one  family,  owning  a  common  Father  and 
a  common  Brother.  Moreover,  the  teachings  of  Christ 
constantly  presuppose  the  fellowship  of  Christians. 
Thus  He  gives  a  special  promise  to  encourage  united 
prayer  (x\iii.  19,  20). 

An  important  aspect  of  the  life  of  the  Church  i^ 
seen  in  those  teachings  of  Chiist  which  relate  to 
the  influence  His  people  are  destined  to  exercise  in  the 
world.  They  are  to  be  the  salt  of  the  earth  and  the 
light  of  the  world,  and  they  are  directly  commissioned 
to  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations  (Matt,  xxviii,  19). 
The  Apostles  were  chosen  to  be  the  leading  instruments 
of  the  great  mission,  to  be  "fishers  of  men."  The 
gi'eater  part  of  our  Lord's  teaching  consisted  in  the 
training  of  the  twelve  ;  and   He  bade   His  tUscipIes 


96  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

pray  for  more  labourers  to  be  sent  into  the  harvest- 
field.  In  addition  to  this  primary  duty  of  mission 
preaching,  the  Apostles — represented  by  their  spokes- 
man, St.  Peter — were  ordained  to  act  in  regard 
to  Christian  morals  as  the  rabbis  acted  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  Jewish  law,  i.e..  to  explain  what 
was  right  and  what  was  wrong,  a  process  commonly 
designated  by  the  phrase  "  binding  and  loosing " 
(xvi.  19). 

The  fourth  Gospel  treats  more  of  the  spiritual 
experiences  that  lie  behind  the  ethics.  Kighteousness 
is  here  set  forth  in  two  great  ideas.  First,  it  is  doing 
God's  will  (John  v.  30  ;  vi.  38).  Christ  expects  His 
disciples  to  keep  His  "commandments"  (xiv.  15). 
Heie  we  have  an  evident  allusion  to  such  precepts  as 
those  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  although  St.  John 
does  not  anywhere  recite  them,  as  the  Synoptics 
do.  Now  the  stress  is  laid  on  the  spirit  of  obedi- 
ence, rather  than  on  definite  actions.  This  obedience 
is  not  servile;  it  is  intelligent,  free,  based  on  love. 
Second,  righteousness  is  rooted  in  truth  (viii.  44), 
which  here  assumes  almost  a  concrete  form,  so  real 
and  solid  is  it.  Thus  right  Christian  conduct  is  truth 
in  action.  On  the  other  hand,  sin  is  denounced  as 
wilful,  open-eyed  misconduct  (ix.  41),  which  leads  to 
bondage  (viii.  34)  and  moral  blindness  (ix.  39).  It  is 
the  opposite  of  "doing  the  truth";  shows  itself  in 
a  lying  spirit ;  is  directly  diabolical  in  character,  so 
that  men  who  give  way  to  it  are  named  "  children 
of  the  devil "  (viii.  44) ;  is  most  clearly  revealed 
in  the  rejection  of  Christ  (viii.  46,  47 ;  xv.  22,  23)  '■> 
and    is    so    prevalent    and    yet    so    little    recognised 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  97 

that  one  great  object  of  the  coming  of  the  Paraclete 
will  be  to  "  convict  the  world  in  respec-t  of  sin " 
(xvi.  8).  This  Paraclete,  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  also  the 
inspiration  of  righteousness. 

Among  Christians  brotheily  love  is  strongly  insisted 
on.  It  is  the  object  of  Christ's  neic  commandment, 
and  a  natural  result  of  His  own  love  to  His  people 
(XV.  12). 

Lastly,  the  social  aspect  of  Christianity  is  recog- 
nised. The  immecUate  followers  of  Christ  are  like 
sheep  in  a  fold.  He  has  others  outside  the  fold; 
but  all  will  at  length  become  one  flock  (x.  16). 

Christ's  Treatment  of  the  Old  Testament. 
This  subject  naturally  comes  up  for  consideration 
under  the  topic  of  ethics,  because  it  is  chiefly  on 
moral  grounds  that  our  Lord  traverses  the  lines  of 
the  older  legislation.  At  first  sight  His  conduct 
is  perplexing  and  apparently  contradictory.  He  was 
familiar  with  the  Old  Testament,  and  He  quoted 
it  freely;  not  only  because  it  was  an  authority 
with  His  hearers,  but  also  because  He  attached  to 
it  Divine  authority  for  Himself — e.g.^  in  His  tempta- 
tion in  the  wilderness.  He  said  that  not  one  jot 
or  tittle  of  the  law  could  fail  (Matt.  v.  18).  To 
neglect  the  least  commandment  was  to  incur  the 
penalty  of  taking  the  lowest  place  in  the  kingdom 
of  heaven ;  to  keep  and  teach  the  commandments 
fully  was  to  earn  a  high  place  (ver.  19).  The  whole 
duty  of  man  is  deduced  from  precepts  of  the  law. 
Jesus  was  accused  of  breaking  the  law  ;  but  there 
is  no  evidence  that  He  ever  did  so.     He  often  broke 

7 


§8  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

through  the  ycribes' /ence  of  the  law;  He  distinctly 
repudiated  popular  application  of  the  law :  but  He 
did  not  anticipate  the  attitude  of  St.  Paul  in  re- 
nouncing the  law  itself.  He  was  a  Jew  by  birth, 
and  He  lived  as  a  Jew,  worshipping  in  the  synagogue, 
attending  the  national  festivals,  paying  the  temple 
tax.  On  the  other  hand,  He  not  only  rejected 
mischievous  traditions  of  the  rabbis;  He  distinctly 
abrogated  certain  precepts  of  the  Pentateuch— e.^/., 
the  lex  talionis  and  the  law  of  divorce — treating  them 
in  the  historical  spii'it,  as  of  a  temporary  character, 
and  as  shaped  in  accordance  with  the  capacities  of 
an  inferior  moral  status.  We  must  look  for  the  key 
to  our  Lord's  independent  action  in  these  matters  in 
His  own  teaching.  He  said  He  came  "  to  fulfil "  the 
law  and  the  prophets.  By  fulfilment  He  did  not 
signify  the  actual  performance  of  what  was  required  by 
the  law  (as  in  Rom.  xiii.  8),  nor  the  realising  of  pro- 
phecy in  the  event.  His  teachings  plainly  show  that 
He  meant  a  completion — i.e.,  the  development  of  the 
Mof^aic  commands  and  the  prophetic  instructions  up 
to  the  perfection  of  the  Divine  purpose  that  lay  in 
them.*  Christ  found  the  underlying  idea  which  was 
but  inadequately  attained  in  the  Jewish  Scriptures, 
and  He  realised  it  fully  in  His  higher  ethics,  although 
the  deliverance  of  the  kernel  sometimes  involved  the 
destruction  of  the  husk.  Two  of  our  Lord's  great 
principles  facilitated  this  process.  First,  the  principle 
of  inwardness  led  to  the  repudiation  of  formal  regula- 
tions that  were  not  always  true  to  their  original 
purpose  in  the  circumstances  of  later  times.  Second, 
*  For  this  idea  of  fulfilment  see  Matt,  xxiii.  32  :  Mark  i.  15. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  99 

the  principle  of  brotherly  love  was  applied  as  a  touch- 
stone to  laws  which  had  been  carried  out  irrespective 
of  the  good  of  mankind.  Jesus  taught  boldly  that 
'•  the  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  not  man  for  the 
Sabbath"  (Mark  ii.  27);  therefore  the  Son  of  Man 
who  had  come  to  save  man  and  rule  him  had  a  right 
over  the  Sabbath ;  therefore,  too,  the  Sabbath  must 
be  utilised  for  man's  good,  not  stiffened  into  a  yoke 
of  distressful  and  unprofitable  formalism.  Jesus  did 
not  proclaim  the  abolition  of  sacrifices  and  other 
temple  ceremonies.  But  His  teaching  was  a  solvent 
beneath  which,  in  course  of  time,  all  such  relics  of  a 
DDCchanical  ritual  were  bound  to  disappear.  His 
practical  genius,  His  large  sympathy.  His  brotherli- 
ness,  interpreting  to  us  the  mind  and  heart  of  God, 
had  a  natural  affinity  with  the  words  of  Hosea, 
which  He  once  quoted:  "I  desire  mercy,  and  not 
sacrifice"  (Matt.  ix.  13).  He  plainly  hinted  that 
it  would  be  impossible  to  keep  the  new  wine  of  the 
Christian  thought  and  life  in  the  old,  stiff  wine-skins 
of  Judaism,  or  to  use  the  gospel  merely  to  patch 
the  ragged  garment  of  the  law.  Such  utterances 
show  that,  though  our  Lord  did  not  expressly  antici- 
pate "Paulinism,"  He  sowed  seeds  of  which  the 
bold  novelties  of  the  great  Hellenist  might  fairly  be 
regarded  as  the  legitimate  development. 

VIII.    THE   FUTURE 

In  His  treatment  of  questions  concerning  the 
future,  Jesus  Christ  made  use  of  the  current  language 
of  His  day,  and  even  of  the  imagery  that  was  most 


100  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

familiar  to  His  contemporaries.  Iiideetl,  He  did  little 
to  lift  the  veil  that  hides  from  us  the  circumstances 
of  existence  beyond  the  grave.  His  teaching  on  this 
subject  has  immense  weight  and  significance,  however : 
first,  because  it  affirms  with  unhesitating  certainty 
the  great  truth  of  a  future  life ;  secondly,  because  it 
gives  a  spiritual  conception  of  that  life  in  opposition 
to  popular  materialistic  views;  and  thirdly,  because 
it  lays  down  the  conditions  on  which  future  blessedness 
may  be  attained.  Moreover,  His  predictions  of  the 
approaching  judgment  and  the  Parousia — subjects 
which  belong  primarily  to  national  rather  than  to 
private  life — are  full  and  explicit.  These  predictions 
demand  separate  treatment.     Let  us  take  them  first. 

Jesus  distinctly  announced  to  His  disciples  that  He 
would  retui'n  to  earth  in  splendour  and  power  (Mark 
viii.  38 ;  Luke  xxi.  27).  Such  an  idea  was  quite 
strange  to  Jewish  thought,  which  knew  nothing 
of  a  second  advent  of  the  Messiah ;  but  it  was 
necessitated  by  the  fact  that  a  premature  death  was 
fast  approaching  to  cut  short  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus 
before  He  had  accomplished  the  work  of  judgment  or 
established  the  rule  of  might  and  blessedness  which 
the  prophets  had  foretold. 

Our  Lord  portrays  His  return  in  language  that 
reminds  us  of  the  Old  Testament  theophanies,  such 
as  the  coming  of  God  in  earthquake  and  tempest 
(Psalm  xviii.  7-15),  and  His  manifestations  of  Him- 
self in  the  doom  of  nations  (1.  4-6).  Is  it  not  then 
unreasonable  to  conceive  the  descriptions  of  the 
coming  of  the  Son  of  Man  with  clouds  of  glory  and 
angelic   attendants    so   literally   as    to   anticipate   a 


THE   XEW  TESTAMENT  101 

visible  pageant,  especially  when  we  give  duo  weight 
to  a  pictorial  style  of  speech  ?  Besides,  it  is  very 
evident  that  these  pictures  are  based  on  Daniel's 
dream  (Dan.  vii.  13).  Now,  inasmuch  as  the  world- 
kingdoms  of  that  dream  were  never  seen  in  history 
as  monstrous  beasts  coming  up  from  the  sea,  is  it  not 
inconsistent  with  the  i-est  of  the  picture  to  expect  the 
last  scene — that  which  represents  the  kingdom  from 
heaven — to  be  realised  historically  in  the  visible  ap- 
pearance which  it  assumes  in  the  dream  ? 

But  a  great  truth  is  here  taught — viz.,  that  Jesus 
Christ  will  retnrn  for  judgment  and  rule.  Further, 
His  language  is  as  definite  as  words  can  make  it  in 
asserting  that  this  is  to  happen  during  the  lifetime  of 
His  contemporaries.  Some  of  those  standing  around 
Him  are  not  to  die  before  they  see  Him  coming  in 
the  glory  of  His  Father  with  His  angels  (Matt.  xvi. 
27,  28).  In  concluding  an  account  of  His  second 
advent  He  says, ."  Yerily  I  say  unto  you,  This  gene- 
ration shall  not  pass  away  until  all  these  things  bo 
accomplished  "  ;  and  then,  to  give  emphasis  to  His 
prediction.  He  adds,  "  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass 
away,  bnt  My  words  shall  not  pass  away  "'  (xxiv. 
34,  35).  An  examination  of  the  details  of  the  Vision 
of  Judgment  to  which  this  solemn  language  refers 
shows  that  it  has  a  very  evident  connection  with  the 
overthrow  of  the  Jewish  State  and  Church.  The 
"abomination  of  desolation"  will  stand  in  "a  holy 
place,"  and  then  they  "that  are  in  Jicdcea"  are  to 
"flee  unto  the  mountains"  (ver.  16) — a  warning 
which  tiie  Jerusalem  Christians  took  when  they 
retreated  to  Pella  on  the  approach  of  Titus  and  his 


102  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

legions.*  The  time  will  be  most  trying  for  mothers 
with  young  children.  Let  the  disciples  pray  that 
their  flight  be  not  in  winter  or  on  a  Sabbath. 

Nevertheless,  the  teaching  of  Christ  has  a  wider 
outlook.  The  parable  of  the  Sheep  and  the  Goats 
describes  a  judgment  of  the  nations  (Matt.  xxv.  32) ; 
the  parable  of  the  Vineyard  anticipates  a  time  after 
the  judgment  of  the  Jews  when  the  vineyard  shall 
be  let  out  to  other  husbandmen  (xxi.  41) ;  and  a 
similar  idea  is  seen  in  the  parable  of  the  Marriage 
Feast,  which  is  to  be  supplied  with  guests  after  those 
first  invited  have  declined  to  come  (xxii.  9,  10).  It 
is  quite  according  to  the  analogy  of  all  prophecy 
that  there  should  be  no  perspective  in  the  vision  of 
the  futuie.  Our  Lord  declared  His  own  ignorance 
of  the  day  and  hour  of  His  coming.  It  is  not  less 
characteristic  of  prophecy  that  its  principles  should 
realise  themselves  in  repeated  hisborical  fulfilments, 
Tijis  is  suggested  by  the  words,  "  Wheresoever  the 
carcase  is,  there  will  the  eagles  be  gathered  together." 
Christ  returns  in  every  Divine  judgment ;  He  is 
present  in  the  clouds,  triumphing  in  every  victory  of 
the  kingdom  of  God. 

In  the  next  place,  we  have  our  Lord's  teachings 
concerning  the  great  hereafter.     The  Sadducees  denied 

*  Keim,  Pfleiderer,  and  others  consider  the  Vision  of 
Judgment  in  Matthew  to  be  part  of  a  "Little  Apocalypse," 
some  lost  Jewish  work,  and  not  a  genuine  utterance  of  Jesus 
Christ.  But  there  are  two  decided  objections  to  this  view  : 
(I)  we  have  no  reference  to  the  work  in  all  literature  ;  (2)  the 
words  were  accepted  by  very  early  Christians  as  our  Lord's. 
Could  these  people  have  been  so  greatly  deceived  ?  See 
Beyschlag,  vol.  i.,  p.  184, 


THE   NEW  TEST  AM  EXT  103 

a  future  life  ;  the  Essenes  limited  it  to  the  continued 
existence  of  souls  ;  the  Pharisees  taught  that  there 
would  be  a  bodily  resurrection,  and  their  idea  was 
predominant  in  the  time  of  Christ.     Our  Lord  ac- 
cepted the  view  of  the  Pharisees ;  but  He  so  trans- 
formed   and    elevated     it     that     all    its    grossness 
dis:q)peared.     He  never  betrayed  a  shadow  of  doubt 
as  to  the  existence  of  life  beyond  the  grave.     On  the 
contrary,  He  affirmed  it  with  serene  assurance,  and, 
when  challenged  by  sceptical  inquirers,  proceeded  to 
deducts  a  proof  of  it  from  an  authority  which  they 
were   bound  to    acknowledge.       Pointing  to  an    Old 
Testament  title  of  God,  He  declared  that  the  use  of 
it  by  Moses  implied  that  the  patriarchs  wei-e  really 
alive  even  in  His  day  (Luke  xx.  38).     But  while  our 
Lord's  words  are  thus  luminous  and  emphatic,  the 
supremely  significant  teaching,  that  which  flashes  a 
flood  of  light  on  the  cpiestion    of    life    after  death, 
springs  from    His   own   example.     He  revealed  the 
risen  life  by  Himself  rising  from  the  dead.     He  is  the 
firstfruits ;  and  in  His  resurrection  w^e  see  both  the 
actual  commencement  of  the  Christian   resurrection 
and    indications  of  its  nature.     First,   we   have   an 
instance  of  the  fact  of   life   after  death ;    then  the 
peculiar  relation  of  Christ  to  mankind  renders  this 
prophetic  and  even  causative  of  a  similar  experience 
in    His  brethren  ;  lastly,  the  pecidiar  actions  of  the 
risen  Christ  show  that,  since  He  did  not  return  to  the 
limitations  and  occupations  of  His  earher  life,  the  risen 
life  possesses  unique  powers  in  freedom  from  material- 
istic conditions.     He   could   present    Himself  within 
closed  doors,  disappear  before  the  eyes  of  men,  walk 


104  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

with  His  friends  unrecognised  by  them,  and  yet  prove 
His  identity  beyond  doubt  when  He  chose. 

In  two  particulars  our  Lord's  language  about  tlie 
resurrection  is  marked  by  distinctive  characteristics. 
One  is  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  risen  life.  He 
repudiated  the  low  conception  of  it  suggested  by  the 
Sadducees,  who  tried  to  throw  ridicule  over  it  by 
introducing  a  trivial,  vulgar  question.  Our  Lord 
replied  that  the  risen  "  neither  marry,  nor  are  given  in 
marriage  ;  for  neither  can  they  die  any  more  :  for  they 
are  equal  unto  the  angels  "  (laike  xx.  35,  36).  The 
resurrection,  then,  is  not  to  a  physical,  animal  life. 

The  other  distinctive  characteristic  of  our  Lord's 
teaching  about  the  resurrection  is  the  assertion  of  its 
limitation.  It  is  not  for  all  men :  it  is  only  an  in- 
heritance of  the  redeemed.  There  is  no  resurrection 
for  the  impenitent  wicked.  In  the  important  passage 
which  describes  His  argument  with  the  Sadducees, 
Jesus  speaks  of  those  "  that  are  accounted  ivorthy 
to  attain  to  that  age  and  the  resurrection  from  the 
dead  "  (ver.  35),  plainly  implying  that  those  who  are 
not  accounted  worthy  do  not  attain  to  these  ends. 
They  only  who  thus  attain  ''  are  sons  of  God,  being 
sons  of  the  resurrection."  Future  blessedness  consists 
primarily,  and  indeed  essentially,  in  the  possession  of 
eternal  life.  The  gi-eat  privilege  is  to  attain  unto 
the  resurrection.  The  nariow  way  leads  to  life. 
Jesus  was  no  pessimist.  His  doctrine,  which  has 
some  affinities  with  Buddhism  in  its  insistence  on 
self-renunciation  and  in  its  pity  for  the  miserable,  is 
here  directly  opposed  to  the  Oriental  view  of  perfec- 
tion.    Not  nirvana,  but  life,  is  the  end  of  the  highest 


TUB   XEW  TESTAMENT  105 

spiritual  endeavour.  Therefore  in  itself  life  is  good. 
To  possess  the  powers  and  faculties  of  an  undying  and 
incorruptible  life  is  regarded  by  Christ  as  the  sum 
and  substance  of  personal  well-being. 

Then  our  Lord  cheers  His  servants  with  the  pros- 
pect of  rewards,  but  so  as  to  exclude  a  low,  mercenary 
view  of  them.  The  King's  feast  is  free  to  all  kinds 
of  people,  irrespective  of  merit.  While  in  the  service 
of  Christ  deserts  ai-e  considered,  the  recompense  is 
more  than  wages.  The  parable  of  the  Pounds  shows 
that  it  far  exceeds  the  worth  of  the  ser\-ice  rendered  ; 
for  the  charge  of  whole  cities  is  given  in  return  for 
fidelity  in  trade  with  money.  This  parable  also 
teachts  that  the  reward  is  to  vary  with  the  service 
rendered  (Luke  xix.  16-19).  But  it  raises  the  subject 
above  considerations  which  might  instil  mere  greed  for 
selfish  pleasure.  The  reward  for  faithful  service  in 
the  present  life  is  the  privilege  of  larger  service 
hereafter.  It  is  promotion.  Christ  sets  this  heavenly 
rew^ard  of  His  in  contrast  to  the  poor  eai  thly  payment 
of  the  praise  of  men  (Matt  \i.  1-4) 

Although  our  Lord  promises  no  resurrection  for 
the  impenitent  wicked,  He  teaches  that  they  will 
have  conscious  existence  after  death.  Nowhere  in 
the  Bible  do  we  meet  with  more  terrible  language 
describing  the  fate  of  those  who  die  in  their  sins  than 
in  the  words  that  fell  from  the  lips  of  the  Saviour  of  the 
world.  He  freely  employed  the  most  fearful  imagery 
of  His  day.  He  spoke  of  the  undying  worm  and  the 
unquenchahle  fire  of  Gehenna — language  bori-owed  from 
the  description  of  a  destruction  of  unburied  corpses  in 
L^a.  Ixvi.  24 — to  show  that  the  terrors  of  the  woi  Id 


106  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

to  come  are  irresistible.  Men  cannot  evade  them  or 
trample  on  them.  Dives  cannot  cross  the  gulf  that 
separates  him  from  Abraham's  bosom. 

Future  punishment  is  largely  negative.  The  man 
without  the  wedding  garment  is  expelled  from  the 
king's  feast ;  the  foolish  virgins  are  shut  out  of  the 
bridal  festivities  ;  the  idle  servant  loses  his  money, 
and  is  cast  into  outer  darkness.  But  this  punishment 
is  also  fearfully  positive.  We  read  of  "  weeping  and 
gnashing  of  teeth  "  (Matt.  xxv.  30).  It  is  better  to 
lose  an  offending  hand,  or  foot,  or  eye,  than  to  be 
cast  into  the  unquenchable  fire  of  Gehenna  (Mark 
ix.  43-50).  As  there  is  no  resurrection  for  those  who 
suffer  after  death,  their  sufferings  cannot  be  physical ; 
they  will  have  no  body,  therefore  Christ  uses  the 
popular  language  in  a  metaphorical  sense.  But  this 
does  not  imply  that  the  sufferings  will  be  less  terrible. 
The  worst  pains  are  those  that  the  soul  feels.  Indeed, 
all  pain  exists  only  in  the  consciousness. 

Many  utterances  of  our  Lord  point  to  destruction 
rather  than  pain  as  the  doom  of  ruined  souls :  the 
broad  road  leads  to  destruction  ;  the  house  on  the  sand 
is  swept  away  by  the  flood,  etc.  It  is  not  to  be  sup- 
posed that  there  is  any  contradiction  between  the  ideas 
of  painful  punishment  and  destruction ;  for  the  two 
things  might  not  be  contemporaneous,  and  the  suffering 
might  end  in  destruction.  Moreover,  the  destruction 
might  not  involve  extinction  of  being.  We  know  that 
physiological  death  is  far  from  annihilation.  The  dead 
body  continues  for  a  while  as  a  decaying  corpse,  and 
the  elements  of  this  body  exist  after  they  have  been 
dissipattd.     Death  is  the  loss  of  a  mysterious  collection 


THE   NFAV  TESTAMENT  107 

of  powers,  not  the  extermination  of  that  in  which  they 
reside.  The  Greek  word  {aiToWvixL)  most  commonly  used 
for  the  doom  of  sin  has  a  wide  meaning,  and  signifies 
to  ruin  {e.g.,  Mark  i.  24;  ii.  22),  and  to  lose  (e.g., 
Mark  ix.  41 ;   Luke  xv.  4,  8,  24)  as  well  as  to  destroy. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  our  Lord  speaks  of 
gradations  of  punishment.  One  will  be  beaten  with 
many  stripes,  another  with  few.  It  will  be  more 
tolerable  in  the  day  of  judgment  for  Nineveh,  Tyre, 
etc.,  than  for  the  cities  that  rejected  Christ. 

Did  Jesus  teach  the  possibility  of  restoration  after 
death  ?  He  said,  concerning  a  person  guilty  of  an 
unpardonable  sin,  "It  shall  not  be  forgiven  him, 
neither  in  this  age,  nor  in  that  which  is  to  come" 
(Matt.  xii.  32),  words  which  seem  to  imply  that  other 
sins  might  be  forgiven  hereafter.  Perhaps  the 
"  stripes "  with  which  a  servant  is  beaten  indicate 
corrective  punishment.  The  strongest  expression — 
that  about  going  away  "into  eternal  punishment  " — 
might  be  read  "  into  age-long  chastisement "  (et? 
KoAao-tv  alwvLov) ;  and  the  use  of  a  term  sometimes 
meaning  chastisement  rather  than  a  word  designating 
vindictive  punishment  {e.g.,  n/xtopia,  Heb.  x.  29),  is 
thought  by  some  to  hint  at  remedial  possibilities.* 
Above  all,  our  Lord's  revelation  of  the  Fatherhood 
of  God  seems  to  conflict  with  the  idea  of  a  hopeless 
future.  But  all  these  hints  are  vague  and  uncertain. 
Christ   did  not  make  any  assertion  about   a   future 

*  This  distinction  between  K6\a<XLS  and  rifiupla  is  expounded 
by  Ai-istotle  (^RJiet.,  1.  10).  On  the  other  hand,  Trcncli  shows 
that  the  word  KdXaais  was  used  with  the  more  severe  signifi- 
cation in  Hellenistic  Greek  {Spi.  of  the  New  Ti'sL,  p.  22). 


108  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

restoration  of  the  lost  after  death,  nor  did  He  utter 
any  prophecy  at  all  concerning  the  infinite  future. 

The  idea  of  Divine  judgment  is  very  prominent  in 
the  fourth  Gospel,  but  with  this  peculiarity,  that  it  is 
there  generally  assigned  to  the  present  age.  The  judg- 
ment has  already  commenced,  and  is  now  in  progress. 
It  is  in  the  hands  of  Christ,  who  says,  "  For  judgment 
came  I  into  this  world  "  (John  ix.  39).  We  have  not 
to  wait  for  the  Parousia  before  we  se^  Him  judging 
the  world.  Yet  the  primary  object  of  the  advent  of 
our  Lord  was  not  judgment,  but  salvation;  thus  He 
said,  "  1  came  not  to  judge  the  world,  but  to  save  the 
world  "  (xii.  47).  The  verbal  contradiction  is  easily 
solved.  The  aim  and  purpose  of  Christ  was  to  save; 
but  the  result  of  His  coming,  since  He  was  rejected, 
was  to  judge.  This  is  further  explained  by  reference 
to  the  nature  of  our  Lord's  judgment,  which  is  not  the 
external  exercise  of  His  authority,  but  the  internal 
influence  of  His  truth  :  "  The  word  tliat  I  spake, 
the  same  shall  judge  him  in  the  last  day  "  (ver.  48). 
This  passage  shows  that  our  Lord  taught  that  there 
would  be  a  future  judgment,  a  lesson  which  seems  also 
to  be  indicated  elsewhere  {e.g.,  v.  22-7).  Still,  the 
fourth  Gospel  drops  the  Daniel-like  imagery  of  the 
Parousia  in  clouds  of  glory  and  its  associated  picture 
of  the  grand  assize.  Christ  will  come  again,  but  His 
advent  will  be  spiritual,  into  the  hearts  of  His  people. 
The  true  glorification  of  the  Son  is  in  His  passion  and 
during  His  earthly  life  (xiii.  31). 

This  Gospel  emphatically  teaches  the  doctrine  of 
future  punishment.  They  who  harden  themselves 
in  sin  will  pass  under  condemnation,  and  their  doom 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  109 

will  be  de.struction.  Fruitless  Christians  will  be 
dealt  with  like  ban-en  branches  that  are  cut  off 
from   the   ^^ne  and  burnt   (xv.    6). 

Even  more  evidently  than  in  the  SynojiJtics  the 
central  idea  of  the  future  of  the  blessed  embodied 
in  St.  John's  version  of  Christ's  teaching  is  that 
of  eternal  life,  which  is  also  associated  with  the 
resurrection  here,  as  in  the  earlier  accounts.  Jesus 
distinctly  teaches  that  the  resurrection  is  for  those 
who  have  His  life  in  them.  Thus,  when  Martha 
speaks  of  the  resurrection  as  a  matter  of  course 
to  occur  ''at  the  last  day,"  Jesus  corrects  her."  It 
is  not  an  incident  of  a  certain  day,  it  is  connected 
with  the  person  of  Christ,  who  says,  "  I  am  the 
resurrection  and  the  life;  he  that  beUeveth  on  Me, 
though  he  die,  yet  shall  he  live  "  (xi.  25).  This  limits 
the  resurrection  to  those  who  are  in  vital  union  with 
Christ.  The  same  idea  is  taught  in  the  discourse 
about  the  bread  of  life,  where  three  times  Jesus  says 
that  He  will  laise  up  at  the  last  day  tliose  icho  believe 
on  Him  (vi.  39,  40,  54).*  Of  this  Ufe  we  have  full 
assurance.  It  is  in  the  house  of  God,  and  with 
large  room — *'  many  resting-places."  If  it  were  not 
so,  Christ  would  have  told  us.  He  goes  Himself  to 
prepare  a  place  for  His  friends. 

*  In  one  passage  only  St.  John  describes  our  Lord  as 
Iircdicting  a  "  resurrection  of  judgment  "  for  those  "  that 
have  done  ill "  (v.  29),  Tliis  solitary  expression  is  directly 
opposed  to  the  explicit  descriptions  of  the  resurrection  else- 
where in  this  Gospel,  as  well  as  in  the  Synoptics.  Should 
we  not,  therefore,  infer  that  St.  John  has  here  unconsciously 
assimilated  the  language  of  Christ  to  that  of  Daniel,  which 
he  almost  quotes  ? 


THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE 
APOSTLES 

UNSCIENTIFIC  methods  of  study,  based  on 
a  priori  notions  of  inspii*ation,  long  hindered 
the  perception  of  any  differences  among  the  ideas  of 
the  early  Christian  teachers  or  any  development  of 
doctrine  in  the  New  Testament,  and  it  is  only  in  com- 
paratively recent  times  that  historical  criticism  has 
been  applied  to  the  sacred  documents,  with  the  result 
that  diversity  of  type  and  growth  of  thought  have 
been  discovered  in  apostolic  teaching. 

The  first  use  of  the  new  process  was  so  crude  and 
violent  that  this  process  was  at  once  gravely  dis- 
credited in  the  minds  of  sober  students.  Its  foremost 
leader  and  most  brilliant  exponent  was  Ferdinand 
Christian  Baur.  That  daring  critic  maintained  that 
the  piimitive  Church  was  rent  into  two  fiercely 
antagonistic  parties — on  the  one  side  the  original 
Apostles,  Peter,  John,  James,  etc.,  holding  an  intensely 
Jewish  form  of  Christianity,  represented  by  the 
Apocalypse ;  on  the  other  side  St.  Paul,  keenly 
anti- Jewish,  and  therefore  repudiated  by  the  Apostles, 
whom  in  turn  he  is  said  to  have  disparaged  scornfully. 
St.  Paul's  views  are  extracted  from  his  four  greatest 

110 


NEW  TESTAMENT  THEOLOGY         111 

Epistles — those  to  the  Galatians,  the  Corinthians,  and 
the  Romans.  The  rest  of  the  New  Testament  is 
affirmed  to  be  of  late  origin,  and  most  of  it  designed 
to  reconcile  the  contending  parties,  and  so  to  establish 
in  the  second  century  the  cloctiine  known  as  Catholic 
in  subsecpient  ages.  This  extravagant  theory,  which 
is  commonly  designated  the  Tubingen  hypothesis,  has 
been  discredited  among  the  disciples  of  its  founder. 
In  a  simiLar  spirit,  however,  Pfleiderer  has  advanced 
a  scheme  of  primitive  doctrine,  which  avoids  the 
difficulties  of  its  predecessor,  although  it  conjures  up 
new  notions  of  an  even  more  objectionable  character. 
Perceiving  that  no  cleavage  of  the  Church  lasting 
down  into  the  second  century  can  be  discovered 
either  in  the  New  Testament  or  in  history,  he  holds 
that  an  agreement  between  the  opposing  parties  was 
brought  about  much  earlier  than  Baur  supposed. 
But  he  considers  that  the  most  characteristic  ideas  of 
Christianity—  its  universalism  in  particular — did  not 
originate  in  the  mind  of  Jesus  Christ,  nor  even  spring 
from  Jewish  soil,  but  were  products  of  Hellenism, 
consequences  of  the  application  of  the  wider  Greek 
thought  to  the  intense  but  narrow  notions  of  primi- 
tive Christian  teaching.  Now,  it  is  certainly  a 
question  of  much  interest,  and  one  that  has  been  too 
much  neglected,  how  far  Grv.ek  intellect  has  developed 
Christian  doctrine  along  its  own  earher  lincvs.  But 
Pfleiderer  lands  himself  in  the  extraordinary  position 
of  virtually  denying  that  Christ  is  the  founder  of 
Christianity.  It  has  been  shown,  however,  by  such 
careful  scholars  as  Lechler,  Weiss,  and  Beyschlag, 
that   the   teachings  of   the   several  Apostles  are  in 


112  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

essential  harmony  with  the  life  and  thought  of  Jesus 
Christ.  Nevertheless,  even  when  we  accept  this 
view,  important  pioducts  of  criticism  remain,  its 
substantial  fruit  which  no  theory  can  dissolve.  In 
particular,  these  are  the  discovery  of  variations  of 
type,  and  the  perception  of  development  in  doctrine. 

Three    main    types  of    apostolic    doctrine    may   be 
unmistakeably    distinguished.     First,    we    have    the 
piimitive  type,  represented  by  the  earlier  speeches  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  history  of  the  Jud?ean 
Churches,  and  the  Epistles  of  St.  James  and  KSt.  Peter. 
This  is  more  or  less  Jewish  throughout,  relying  much 
on  the  Old  Testament,  though  with  a  preference  for 
the  prophets,  and  net  readily  recognising  a  breach 
between    Christianity    and    Judaism ;    in    tone    it  is 
practical  and  unspeculative.      Next  comes  the  great 
Pauline    type,  vividly    illustrated    in  the  life    of   the 
Apostle,     amply    expounded    in    his    writings,    and 
reflected   from  another  standpoint  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews.     This  is  vigorously  anti-legal,  revealing 
the  emancipation  of  Christianity  from  Judaism,  and  the 
more  spiritual  nature  of  the  gospel,  its  cosmopolitan 
character,    its    universalism.     The    Pauline    teaching 
is  both  moi'e  mystical  and  more  dialectical  than  the 
primitive  type.     It   opens    up  the    deepest    spiritual 
experiences,  and  it  ventures  on  elaborate  discussions 
of   doctrine.      St.    Paul   is    the    parent    of    specula- 
tive Christian  theology.     Lastly,  we  meet  with  the 
Johannine  type,  that  presei'ved  in  the  writings  of  the 
fourth  Evangelist.     The  controversy  with  Judaisers 
within  the  Church  is  now  over,  or  it  is  not  concerning 
the  circles  in  which  St.  John  is  living  during  his  later 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  113 

years.  Instead  of  this  the  Apostle  is  confronted  with 
the  speculations  of  an  incipient  Gnosticism  origi- 
nating in  Judaism,  but  mixed  up  with  pagan  ideas. 
The  same  position  is  faced  by  St.  Paul  in  his  later 
epistles.  We  now  see  Christianity  in  contact  with 
the  thought  of  the  Gentile  world.  In  view  of  this 
situation  the  theology  of  St.  John  is  both  fundamental 
and  spiritual.  The  Apostle  is  most  anxious  to  save 
the  first  principles  of  the  faith  from  being  dissipated 
in  a  haze  of  visionary  ideas.  His  object,  therefore,  is 
to  define  rather  than  to  reason. 

While  a  distinct  progress  of  thought  may  be 
traced  throughout  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles,  it  is 
a  curious  fact  that,  Avith  the  exception  of  the  Epistle 
of  St.  James,  in  which  it  is  least  observable,  this 
progress  is  not  mainly  based  on  the  teaching  of 
Jesus.  It  starts  from  the  person  of  Christ,  His  death, 
and  resurrection ;  builds  upon  the  facts  of  li\ing 
Christian  experience ;  and  combines  these  two  series 
of  data  with  a  new  spiritual  interpretation  of  the 
Old  Testament,  to  which  it  appeals  as  the  ultimate 
standard.  Undoubtedly  a  certain  Jewish  colour  is 
given  to  New  Testament  theology  throughout,  not 
only  because  it  is  all  expounded  by  Jews,  but  also 
because  it  so  intimately  interweaves  itself  with  the 
ideas  of  the  ancient  Scriptures.  "  Christian  theo- 
logy," says  Eeuss,*  ''  originated  in  ai  examination 
of  the  relation  of  the  gospel  to  the  law.  ...  It 
was  born,  so  to  speak,  out  of  the  inevitable  conflict 
between  the  old  ideas  and  the  new."     No  one  of  the 

*  n\)it.  of  CliTist.  TJieol.,  third  edition  (Eng.  Trans.),  vol.  i., 
p.  285. 

8 


114  THE    THEOLOGY  OF 

New  Testament  writers  takes  up  the  position  held  by 
Marcion  a  century  later,  when  that  bold  and  able 
thinker  repudiated  the  Old  Testament  as  distinctly 
opposite  in  character  to  the  New.  The  apostolic 
writers  followed  Jesus  Christ  in  looking  for  the  fulfil" 
ment  of  the  Old  in  the  New.  Thus  they  taught  a 
doctrine  of  development.  Then,  under  the  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  which,  as  Jesus  promised,  was  to 
lead  them  into  all  truth,  their  reflections  on  the  death 
and  resurrection  of  Christ  issued  in  a  clearer  per- 
ception of  the  meaning  of  those  great  events,  and 
a  higher  view  of  our  Lord  Himself.  We  may  trace 
in  particular  a  development  of  two  doctrines — the 
doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  and  the  doctrine  of  the 
Person  of  Christ.  The  most  elementary  thought  on 
these  subjects  is  found  in  the  speeches  recorded  in 
Acts.  We  have  an  advance  on  this  in  1  Peter, 
and  a  more  marked  progress  in  St.  Paul's  writings. 
There  is  also  a  certain  development  of  Pauline 
teaching  in  the  course  of  the  Apostle's  successive 
writings,  especially  with  regard  to  the  Divine  glory 
of  Christ  and  His  mystical  union  with  the  Church. 
The  doctrine  of  Christ  is  still  further  advanced  by 
St.  John. 

The  most  conspicuous  development  of  thought  in 
the  Apostolic  Church  was  so  early  completed  that 
happily  it  has  ceased  to  be  of  more  than  historical 
interest.  This  was  the  great  expansion  and  spiritual- 
ising of  the  whole  conception  of  Christianity  that 
emerged  from  the  conflict  with  Judaism. 

At  first  the  followers  of  our  Lord  had  no  idea  of 
breaking  off  from  the  religion  of  their  fathers.     The 


THE  NEW  TESTA  ME  XT  115 

new  age  was  to  be  linked  on  to  the  old  age,  without 
any  revohition  intervening.  Tlie  first  Christians — 
all  of  them  Jews— did  not  renounce  the  ordinances 
of  their  national  religion.  They  kept  the  fasts  and 
feasts;  when  in  Jerusalem,  visited  the  temple  for 
prayer  at  the  regular  hours;  subjecttd  themselves 
to  Jewish  vows;  and  circumcised  their  children. 
They  had  their  distinguishing  marks  in  baptism  and 
the  Lord's  Supper,  and  in  their  own  gatherings  for 
prayer  and  conference.  But  at  first  they  were  only  a 
party  within  the  community  (atpecri?,  Acts  xxiv.  14), 
like  that  of  the  Pharisees  (xxvi.  5).  With  their 
assiduous  piety  they  could  not  but  win  the  appioval  of 
the  Pharisees,  who  were  by  far  the  most  important 
religious  leaders  of  their  day,  and  in  fact  they  weie 
generally  popular  (ii.  47).  Their  position  was  not 
very  consistent,  because,  while  they  were  rigorous 
observers  of  tlie  law,  they  held  that  forgiveness  of 
sins  was  given  by  the  free  mercy  of  God  through 
Jesus  Christ.  Subsequently  St.  Paul  showed  that 
this  doctrine  of  grace  was  inconsistent  with  the 
maintenance  of  the  law.  But  the  early  Christians 
did  not  perceive  the  contrast,  simply  because  they  did 
not  think  out  their  principles  to  ultimate  results. 
Meanwhile  their  real  life  was  in  the  new  faith. 
Unlike  the  Pharisees,  they  looked  for  salvation  to 
Christ,  not  the  law. 

The  first  hint  of  a  separation  arose  out  of  the 
deeper  spiritual  teaching  of  a  Hellenist,  St.  Stephen. 
It  cannot  be  said  that  the  Hellenists  as  a  body 
were  more  spiritual  than  the  Hebrew-spealdng  Jews. 
They  were  in  this  position,  however — that,  living  out 


116  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

of  reach  of  the  temple  services,  they  were  likely  to  be 
freer  from  the  fascination  of  ritualism,  while  o wing- 
to  their  access  to  Greek  culture  they  were  prepared  to 
take  a  large  and  philosophical  view  of  things.  St. 
Stephen  was  accused  of  practically  the  same  oiFence 
with  which  our  Lord  was  charged  before  the  high- 
priest — viz.,  blaspheming  the  temple  (Mark  xiv.  58  ; 
Acts  vi.  13,  14).  This  fact  should  make  us  pause 
before  we  assert  that  his  views  are  to  be  attributed 
to  his  Hellenism.  Would  it  not  be  more  just  at 
best  to  say  that  his  Hellenism  simply  prepared  him 
for  appreciating  the  broader  aspect  of  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  Christ  ?  St.  Stephen  perceived  the  truth 
which  our  Lord  had  taught  to  the  Samaritan  woman 
(John  iv.  21) — viz.,  the  essential  spirituality  of 
worship.  But  the  perception  of  this  truth  prepared 
for  the  inevitable  conclusion  that  the  formal,  local, 
provincial  temple  ceremonies  at  Jerusalem  could  not 
be  permanent.  If  Christianity  is  to  triumph,  it  must 
supersede  those  venerable  relics  of  an  august  antiquity 
— the  sacrifices  of  animals  by  Jewish  priests.  St. 
Stephen's  more  spiritual  apprehension  of  the  teaching 
of  Christ  led  to  his  becoming  the  protomartyr,  and 
it  also  led  to  a  severe  persecution  of  other  Chris- 
tians, because  strict  Jews  now  began  to  see  danger  to 
their  national  cult.  Previous  persecutions  had  been 
but  occasional,  and  then  only  touching  the  leaders  of 
the  new  movement ;  the  ground  of  them  had  been 
the  perception  that  to  proclaim  publicly  that  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  was  the  Messiah  amounted  to  nothing 
less  than  an  indictment  of  the  Jewish  leaders  for  the 
murder  of  their  God-sent  King.     At  length — chiefly 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  117 

owing  to  the  tenchiiig  of  St,  Stephen — the  persecution 
acquired  a  more  popular  basis.  We  have  no  evidence 
to  show  that  the  Hebrew-speaking  Christians  supported 
the  great  Evangehst  in  the  new  position  of  spiritual 
freedom  he  had  taken  up.  In  point  of  fact,  they 
seem  to  have  held  aloof  from  him — for  only  Hellen- 
ists conducted  his  burial.  Moreover,  as  yet  no  idea 
of  dispensing  with  circumcision  had  been  entertained 
in  any  section  of  the  Church.  St.  Stephen  did  not 
say  a  word  on  that  subject. 

A  much  more  important  advance  in  doctrine 
accompanied  the  rapid  conversion  of  Gentiles.  There 
is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  early  Jewish  Chris- 
tians ever  intended  to  confine  the  gospel  to  their  own 
race — Jews  were  proverbially  zealous  in  proselytising. 
But  at  first  it  was  held  that  if  Gentiles  were  to  be 
admitted  to  the  full  privileges  enjoyed  by  Jewish 
Christians,  they  must  submit  to  the  rite  of  circum- 
cision— i.e.,  that  they  could  not  be  Christians  without 
becoming  Jews.  Subsequently,  however,  the  immense 
success  of  St.  Paul's  missions  among  the  Gentiles 
forced  on  the  question  whether  this  was  a  correct 
view\  Men  of  large  mind  began  to  see  the  absurdity 
of  it.  The  course  of  events  was  solving  the  problem 
for  others  too.  It  was  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the 
free  gospel  which  was  winning  these  converts,  to 
assert  that  they  should  be  put  under  the  yoke  of 
the  law  of  an  alien  race,  especially  as  that  yoke 
represented  a  more  elementary  and  narrow  form  of 
religious  culture.  Before  any  controversy  arose  on 
the  subject  Gentiles  were  admitted  into  the  Church. 
St.  Peter  w^as  constrained  to  entertain  enlarged  ideas 


118  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

of  the  grace  of  God  in  the  case  of  CorneUiis  (Acts 
X.  34,  35).  At  Antioch  there  grew  np  a  powerful 
Gentile  Church,  in  which  the  disciples  were  first 
called  "  Christians  "  (xi.  26).  The  Labin  form  of  the 
title  need  not  discredit  the  narrative  in  the  Acts, 
seeing  that  Roman  influence  was  powerful  in  the 
East.  Now  names  are  means  of  distinguishing  per- 
sons and  things,  and  the  invention  of  the  foreign 
name  "  Christian "  marks  the  distinction  between 
those  who  bear  it  and  Jews ;  it  shows  that  the 
Church  is  not  identical  with  the  synagogue. 

The  strict  Jewish  Church  at  Jerusalem  could  not 
at  once  agree  to  this  freer  position,  and  difficulties 
arose  in  Antioch  itself,  which  led  to  the  so-called 
council  at  Jerusalem.  The  Mother  Church  was  then 
simply  overwhelmed  by  St.  Paul's  testimony  to  the 
work  of  God  among  the  heathen  ;  against  its  preju- 
dices it  bowed  to  the  logic  of  facts,  and  conceded  the 
main  question  in  dispute — that  Gentile  Christians 
were  not  to  be  compelled  to  undergo  circumcision. 
But  it  put  these  Christians  in  the  position  of  Proselytes 
of  the  Gate  (Acts  xv.  28,  29).  That  did  not  settle 
the  controversy,  because  it  resulted  in  a  division  of^he 
Christian  Church  into  two  sections,  which  could  not 
commune  together,  could  not  partake  of  a  common 
agape.  It  appears  that  this  state  of  schism  v/as 
deliberately  contemplated  in  the  regulation  that,  while 
St.  Paul  was  at  liberty  to  visit  the  Gentiles,  the  three 
leaders,  James,  Peter,  and  John,  were  to  confine  their 
ministry  to  the  Jews  (Gal.  ii.  9).* 

*  Attempts  have  been  made  to  throw  discredit  on  the  his- 
toricity of  the  narrative  in  the  Acts,  because  St.  Paul  does  not 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  119 

The  next  forward  stop  was  taken  with  tlie  coiicur- 
i-ence  of  St.  Peter.  When  that  hirge-hearted  though 
timorous  Apostle  was  at  Antioch  he  consented  to  live 
on  equal  terms  of  brotherly  communion  with  Gentile 
Christians.  Although  the  strict  party  of  St.  James 
subsequently  persuaded  him  to  withdraw  from  this 
daring  position,  it  is  evident  from  the  rebuke  ad- 
ministered to  him  by  St.  Paul  that  his  real  conviction 
was  clearly  enough  on  the  liberal  side.  It  is  therefore 
plain  from  what  we  read  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians  that  the  genuine  standpoint  of  St.  Peter 
was  essentially  at  one  with  that  of  St.  Paul  in  this 
matter  (Gal.  ii.  14-16).  Probably  St.  James  never 
reached  that  standpoint ;  at  all  events,  the  New 
Testament  gives  no  hint  that  he  did,  and  later 
tradition  represents  him  as  a  strict  observer  of  the 
law.*  Still,  although  the  opposers  of  St.  Paul's  views 
were  of  the  party  of  St.  James  and  commended  by 
him,  we  cannot  say  that  the  Jerusalem  leader  would 

refer  to  the  council  or  the  decree  in  his  account  of  bis  visits  to 
Jerusalem,  which  he  records  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Gahitians. 
It  is  certainly  a  singular  omission.  But  St.  Pa  ul  was  not  in 
the  mood  to  appeal  to  the  authority  of  the  other  Apostles  when 
writing  to  his  Galatian  converts  and  vindicating  his  own 
apostlesbip.  Therefore  perhaps  it  is  that  he  onlj'  refers  to  his 
own  private  intercourse  with  the  Apostles.  Then  the  decree 
did  not  go  so  far  as  St.  Paul.  It  did  not  declare  that  "  cir- 
cumcision availeth  nothing."  It  left  it,  as  of  value,  for  Jews  ; 
and  his  antagonists  might  quote  this  against  him.  At  all 
events,  it  would  not  much  serve  his  purpose.  Besides,  St.  Paul 
does  show  that  the  main  point  was  conceded.  He  states  that 
Titus,  though  a  Greek,  was  not  compelled  to  be  circumcised 
(Gal.  ii.  3). 

*  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  ii.  23. 


120  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

have  sanctioned  all  they  did.  There  is  no  evidence 
that  he  ever  put  himself  in  active  opposition  to 
St.  Paul,  but  the  contrary  (ver.  9).  Most  likely  he 
simply  maintained  the  position  agreed  upon  at  the 
Jerusalem  discussion.  St.  Paul  went  much  further, 
and  declared  that  circumcision  was  nothing  (vi.  15). 
It  was  possible  to  maintain  that  though  the  law  was 
not  essential  for  Gentile  Christians  it  might  be  helpful 
to  them,  and  that  it  might  be  freely  adopted,  though 
it  should  not  be  authoritatively  imposed.  This  was 
the  idea  of  the  Galatian  perverts.  St.  Paul  offers  it 
uncompromising  opposition.  The  logical  consequence 
of  his  view  must  be  that  even  for  Jews  the  law  is 
no  longer  binding,  nor  even  serviceable.  This  al;?o  is 
taught  by  St.  Paul,  who  shows  that  the  law  is  entirely 
superseded  by  the  gospel.  Thus  at  length,  though 
as  yet  only  among  the  Pauline  Churches,  Christianity 
emerges  in  complete  emancipation  from  Judaism. 

THE    PRIMITIVE   TYPE 

I.    THE    EARLY    PREACHING 

Even  during  our  Lord's  lifetime  on  earth  the 
Apostles  were  sent  forth  to  preach  repentance  (Mark 
vi.  12).  But  then  their  training  was  incomplete, 
and  the  chief  work  of  Christ  not  accomplished. 
Jesus  had  not  died  and  risen,  and  the  Pentecostal  gift 
had  not  been  received.  Therefore  we  must  come 
down  to  a  subsequent  period  for  the  real  commence- 
ment of  apostolic  teaching.  This  we  have  in  the 
speeches  of  St.  Peter  recorded  by  St.  Luke  in    the 


THE   NE\y   TESTAMENT  121 

Acts  of  the  Apostles.  The  archaic  tone  of  those 
speeches,  the  absence  of  doctrines  that  appear  later 
in  the  New  Testament,  their  very  deficiencia^,  testify- 
to  their  genuineness. 

The  central  theme  of  the  preaching  of  the  Apo3tles 
was  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  It  may  be  said  most 
literally  that  they  preached  Christ.  They  declared 
that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  whoan  the  Jews  had  rejected 
was  in  truth  the  long-looked-for  Redeemer  and  King 
of  Israel.  But  it  has  often  been  pointed  out  that  the 
full  Di\'inity  of  our  Lord  is  not  set  forth  in  St.  Peter's 
speeches.  His  words  even  assign  a  distinctly  sub- 
ordinate position  to  Christ.  He  says  nothing  of  pre- 
existence.  The  glory  of  Christ  is  subsequent  to  His 
earthly  life  ;  and  it  is  received  from  the  hands  of  Grod. 
Jesus  is  called  "  Lord,"  but  in  distinction  from  Jehovah 
(Acts  ii.  34).  The  name  *'  Son  of  God  "  is  not  giv^en 
to  Him  by  St.  Peter  * — although,  according  to  the 
first  Evangelist,  the  Apostle  had  used  it  in  his  great 
confession  (Matt.  xvi.  16).  On  the  other  hand,  a  new 
and  favoiu'ite  title  is  '"the  Servant"  (6  Trais)  of  God. 
This  is  used  by  St.  Peter  (Acts  iii.  13,  26),  and  it  is 
found  in  a  prayer  of  the  Jerusalem  Church  (iv.  27,  30). 
Still,  our  Lord  is  emphatically  "  the  Servant,"  "  the 
holy  Servant,"  and  "the  Holy  and  Righteous  One" 
(iii.  14).  Anointed  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  with 
power.  He  went  about  doing  good  because  God  was 
with  Him  (x.  38).  God  has  made  Him  both  Lord 
and  Christ  (ii.  36),  so  that  He  is  "  Lord  of  all  "  (x.  36). 

*  In  Acts  viii.  37  (Authorised  Version)  the  phrase  is  used  by 
the  Ethiopian  eunuch,  but  this  verse  is  wanting  in  the  best 
authorities. 


122  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

God  lias  exalted  Him  to  be  "  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour  " 
(v.  31).  When  St.  Peter  says  it  was  impossible  that 
death  should  hold  Him  (ii.  24),  the  analogy  of  other 
passages  leads  us  to  think  he  is  resting  the  assertion 
on  the  prophecy  which  he  proceeds  to  quote  (vers. 
25-8),  the  promise  of  which  cannot  be  broken  ;  but, 
as  Lechler  says,  "  this  does  not  exclude  the  fact  that 
the  victorious  might  and  fulness  of  life,  prophetically 
predicted  of  God's  Anointed,  was  the  internal  ground 
of  the  promise  as  well  as  of  its  fulfilment."*  St. 
Peter  may  well  have  known  more  than  he  chose  to 
state  in  his  first  exposition  of  the  gospel  to  the  Jews. 
The  famous  confession  at  Ca3sarea  almost  compels  us 
to  conclude  that  he  did  not  reveal  the  deepest  mysteries 
of  his  belief  in  his  elementary  missionary  addresses. 
Still,  the  fact  remains  that  these  addresses  are  ele- 
mentary and  primitive  in  type,  and  leave  room  for 
further  development  in  later  expositions  of  Christian 
truth.  The  same  reflections  may  apply  to  teachings 
concerning  the  death  of  Christ. 

In  preaching  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ  the  Apostles 
were  confronted  by  the  obvious  objection  that  He 
had  not  fulfilled  the  Messianic  hopes  of  the  Jews, 
but  had  apparently  failed  to  make  good  His  claims, 
and  had  come  to  an  ignominious  end.  They  dealt 
with  this  objection  veiy  thoroughly.  Here  lay  their 
great  task.  Appealing  to  ancient  Scripture  on  the 
one  hand,  and  to  the  testimony  of  recent  events 
on  the  other,  they  produced  a  reply  which  may  be 
analysed  into  five  pleas. 

*  Aj)ostoUc  and  Posf-A2>o^toIiG  Times  (Eng.  Trans.),  vol.  i., 
p.  273. 


THE  NEW  TE.STAMENT  123 

Eirst,  tliey  corrected  the  idea  of  the  Christ  by  means 
of  that  very  literatuie  on  which  the  Jews  professed  to 
build  their  hopes.  The  customary  reading  of  the  Okl 
Testament  was  too  narrow.  The  Jewish  imagination 
had  dwelt  almost  exclusively  on  the  picture  af  kingly 
glory.  St.  Peter  called  attention  to  the  prediction 
of  a  '' prophet "  like  Moses  (Acts  iii.  22),  and  in 
common  with  his  fellow-disciples  spoke  of  Jesus  in 
His  Messianic  character  as  God's  "  Servant "  {e.g., 
iii.  13  ;  iv.  27).  These  two  forgotten  titles,  "  prophet " 
and  "  servant,"  exactly  fitted  the  great  Teacher,  who 
came  "not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister." 

In  the  second  place,  the  Apostles  showed  that  the 
death  of  Christ  had  been  predicted,  so  that  it  was 
not  an  unforeseen  casualty ;  much  less  was  it  a  fatal 
disaster,  wrecking  the  scheme  of  His  life-work :  it 
had  its  place  in  that  scheme  (Acts  ii.  23).  Accord- 
ing to  the  record  in  Acts  the  Ape  sties  went  no 
further  in  expounding  the  mystery  of  the  Cross  to 
their  first  Jerusalem  audiences.  Kead  in  the  light 
of  the  later  teaching  of  St.  Peter  himself — not  to 
mention  St.  Paul  or  St.  John — this  seems  to  be  a 
most  meagre  explanation.  There  is  not  a  word  about 
any  purpose  in  the  eleath  of  Christ,  any  end  to  be 
achieved  by  that  awful  trag.  dy.  It  is  not  associateel 
with  atonement  for  sin,  nor  with  the  redemption 
of  the  world,  as  in  other  Xew  Testament  writings? 
although  Christ  Himself  had  more  than  once  hinted 
at  these  profound  consequences  (Mark  x.  45; 
xiv,  24).  Still,  imperfect  as  it  is  in  this  respect,  the 
mission-preaching  marks  a  distinct  advance  on  the 
previous  views  of  the  Apostles,  as  well  as  a  startling 


124  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

contradiction    to    prevalent    Jewish   opinions.      It  is 
much  to  make  it  plain  that  the  Saviour  of  the  world 
must  die,  tliat  the  unexpected  picture  of  a  crucified 
Christ  must  henceforth  take  its  place  in  the  core  of 
the  gospel.     Then  the  bare  admission  of  the  necessity 
of  the  death  of  Christ  could  not  but  rouse  inquiries 
concerning  the  purpose  of  it.     Why  was  this  awful 
event  necessary?     St.  Peter  replies,  Because  it  was 
predicted;    he   says    the   same   of    the    resurrection. 
Subsequent  thought,  however,  must  needs  push  the 
inquiry    further   back.     A   fuller    answer  would  be 
suggested  by  the  allusions  to  Isa.   liii.,  which  were 
now   resorted   to,   although  at   first  the  key  to  the 
enigma  supplied  by  that  famous  prophecy  was  not  laid 
hold  of  even  by  those  who  had  insight  enough  to  apply 
the  idea  of  "  The  Servant  of  the  Lord  "  to  Jesus  Christ. 
The  resurrection  of  our  Lord  supplied  a  third  item 
in  the  reply  of  the  Apostles  to  the  objection  of  the 
Cross,  and  their  most  triumphant  vindication  of  the 
claims  of  Christ.     They  place  it  in  the  front  of  their 
teaching,   exulting   over   it   wdth    boundless    delight. 
St.  Peter  argues  that  this  also  is  predicted  in  Scrip- 
ture (Acts  ii,   25-8).     But  he  does  not  now  satisfy 
himself  with  the  appeal  to  prophecy,  as  he  did  in 
the  case  of  the  cruci6xion.     He  advances  beyond  this, 
and  speaks  of  a  fact  known  in  experience.     Herein 
lies  the  claim  of  the  Apostles  to  preach  Christ  with 
boldness.      They   are  witnesses  of   the  resurrection. 
The  foundation  of  their  preaching  is  personal  testi- 
mony.    It  is  not  their  business  to  argue  out  a  system 
of   theology  from  given  facts ;    much   less   do   they 
dream   of   expounding  abstract  speculations.      Their 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  125 

task  is  to  declare,  in  statements  of  which  our  gospels 
are  specimens,  what  they  have  seen  with  their  own 
eyes,  first  of  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus,  and  then 
of  His  resurrection.  This  final  event  was  a  vindica- 
tion of  His  claims,  because  it  was  a  plain  proof  that, 
though  men  had  rejected  Him,  God  had  owned  and 
honoured  Him.  Hence  the  importance  attached  to 
the  often-repeated  statement  that  He  had  been  raised 
up  hy  God.  The  resurrection  proved  that  the  Jews 
were  mistaken,  that  the  Christians  were  right,  that 
Jesus  icas  the  Messiah.  It  also  showed  that  He  was 
still  living.  The  Apostles  did  not  preach  a  dead  Christ. 
But  if  He  is  living,  He  can  manifest  Himself  again. 

This  reflection  conducted  the  Apostles  to  a  further 
point — their  fourth.  They  ^•indicated  the  Messiah- 
ship  of  Christ  by  preaching  His  future  advent.  He 
would  come  again,  and  then  He  would  exercise 
those  dfiices  of  King  and  Judge  which  He  had  not  put 
in  force  during  His  earthly  mini^^try  in  the  manner 
expected  of  Him.  This  topic  and  the  consequences 
deduced  from  it  lent  to  the  preaching  of  the  Apostles 
a  striking  resemblance  to  that  of  John  the  Baptist. 
In  both  cases  there  was  a  prediction  of  the  coming  of 
Christ ;  in  both  this  coming  was  described  as  an  occasion 
of  supreme  glory,  but  also  one  of  severe  judgment ; 
in  botli  the  peoj^le  were  urged  to  repentance  as  a 
preparation  for  the  great  and  terrible  day  of  the 
Lord.  But  there  were  differences.  John  the  Baptist, 
while  preparmg  for  the  coming  of  One  who  had  never 
yet  api)eared  on  earth,  with  the  common  lack  of 
perspective  which  appertains  to  prophecy,  did  not 
distinguish    between    the   times    when   the    Messiah 


12G  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

would  exercise  His  several  functions.  He  knew  of 
no  first  advent  in  humiliation  to  be  followed  by  a 
second  advent  in  glory.  But  the  Apostles  had  seen 
the  character  of  the  first  advent  and  the  abrupt 
conclusion  of  the  earthly  life.  They  were  thus 
prepared  to  declare  that  the  glory  and  judgment 
must  belong  to  a  second  coming  of  Christ.  Then, 
having  seen  Jesus,  they  did  not  simply  predict  the 
coming  of  a  Messiah,  they  foretold  the  return  of  the 
Christ  whom  they  knew.  Further,  by  thus  knowing 
Him  they  were  better  prepared  to  describe  the 
character  of  His  reign.  While  following  the  Baptist 
in  his  announcement  of  judgment  and  chastise- 
ment, they  were  able  to  say  more  of  the  "  times  of 
refreshing  "  and  the  beneficent  effects  of  the  coming 
of  Christ. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  Apostles  were  mistaken 
in  their  expectation  of  the  speedy  return  of  Christ. 
We  must  remember  that  in  their  case  as  well  as  in 
that  of  John  the  Baptist  prophecy  lacks  perspective, 
so  that  the  Apostles  would  picture  to  themselves  and 
to  their  hearers  all  that  is  implied  in  the  advent 
of  Christ  in  one  scene.  But  that  which  was  most 
pressing  in  its  importance,  the  impending  doom  of  the 
guilty  nation  and  the  coming  of  Christ  to  judge  tho.se 
who  had  rejected  Him,  was  speedily  realised  in  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  It  is  objected,  further, 
that  the  Apostles  still  clung  too  closely  to  Jewish 
materialistic  conceptions  of  the  kingdom  of  God ; 
that  instead  of  perceiving  the  spiritual  nature  of  that 
kingdom  as  conceived  by  Christ  Himself,  they  still 
anticipated  a  visible  splendour  of  dominion,  which,  as 


THE   XEW   TE.STAMENT  127 

it  did  not  appear  during  the  earthly  life  cf  our  Lord, 
must  come  hiter — i.e.,  that  they  did  not  change  their 
conception  of  the  Mtssianic  hope,  but  only  postponed 
the  fulfilment  of  it.  There  may  be  some  truth  in  this 
criticism.  We  know  that  the  Apostles  were  entangled 
in  these  old  Jewish  notions  but  a  fe\v  weeks  before 
their  first  preaching  recorded  in  Acts,  and  it  is 
contrary  to  the  analogy  of  spiritual  development  to 
suppose  that  they  entirely  escaped  from  them  by  one 
sudden  leap  into  higher  truth.  Still,  the  endowment 
at  Penteco&t  had  already  enlarged  and  elevated  their 
ideas  to  a  wonderful  degree.  Their  preaching  of  the 
second  advent  was  very  different  from  the  Messianic 
conceptions  of  current  Jewish  thought ;  it  was  more 
ethical,  more  spiritual,  Christ  would  come  to  judge 
the  nation,  and  to  bring  about  a  restoration  of  all 
things  in  a  Divine  order  (Acts   iii.   21), 

Kow,  it  may  be  asked,  on  what  grounds  did  they 
base  this  expectation  ?  It  was  not  enough  that  the 
first  advent  had  not  accomplished  all  that  was  hoped 
from  it.  This  was  taken  in  conjunction  with  the  fact 
that  Jesus  was  proved  to  be  the  Christ  by  His  resur- 
rection. Therefore  He  must  perform  all  the  Messianic 
functions;  and  as  some  of  these  remained  still  in 
al>eyance  the}-  must  be  exercised  in  the  future.  Then 
the  resurrection  pointed  to  this  end  more  directly ;  for 
Jesus,  having  risen,  was  alive  again,  exalted  to  the 
right  hand  of  God,     Thus  He  was  prepared  to  return. 

Lastly,  His  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  a  herald  of 
His  second  advent.  This  is  the  Jifth  vindication  of 
the  ^lessiahsliip  of  Jesus.  The  wonderful  Pentecostal 
advent  of  the  Spirit  is  directly  connected  with   the 


128  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

exaltation  of  Christ.  Being  exalted  to  the  right  hand 
of  God,  and  having  received  of  the  Father  the  promise 
of  tlie  Holy  Spirit,  "  He  hath  poured  forth  this  which 
ye  see  and  hear  "  (ii.  33).  Tims  the  evident  working 
of  the  Spirit  among  men  is  a  proof  of  the  heavenly 
activity  of  Christ,  and  of  His  lofty  position  in 
relation  to  His  Father.  It  is  also  a  sign  of  His 
second  advent,  because  it  is  a  preparation  for  ''  the 
day  of  the  Lord."  St.  Peter  argues  this  point  by 
quoting  a  prophecy  of  Joel,  which  tells  how  in  the  last 
da}S  God  will  pour  out  His  Spirit  upon  all  flesh,  upon 
all  classes,  young  and  old,  bond  and  free ;  so  that  it 
shall  no  longer  be  confined  to  prophets  and  official 
personages.  Now  that  is  just  what  happened  at 
Penttcost,  when  the  Spirit  oame  upon  the  ^vlloh 
Church.  Therefore  St.  Peter  reasons  these  must  be 
the  last  days,  and  the  great  day  of  the  Lord'  must 
be  near.  He  was  right,  as  history  proved.  The  old 
order  of  Judaism  was  doomed,  and  its  overthrow 
soon  followed  ;  the  new  order  of  Christianity  with 
the  age  of  the  Spirit  was  already  dawning. 

On  the  basis  of  this  preaching  of  Christ  the  Apostles 
advanced  to  practical  appeals.  First,  like  John  the 
Baptist,  they  called  for  repentance.  The  demand  was 
more  urgent  than  in  the  preaching  of  the  forerunner, 
for  a  new  sin  had  been  added  to  the  old  tale  of  guilt,  a 
sin  so  fearful  that  it  almost  obliterated  the  thought 
of  all  other  sin.  The  Jews  had  denied  the  Holy  and 
Righteous  One,  and  asked  for  a  murderer  to  be  granted 
them  ;  they  had  killed  the  Prince  of  life.  The  sin  of 
sins  was  the  wilful  rejection  of  Christ.  Yet  even  for 
those  wliD  had  been  guilty  of  this  enormity  there  was 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  129 

a  gospel.  This  was  in  the  very  Christ  whom  the 
Jews  had  rejected.  "  In  none  other  is  there  salvation" 
(Acts  iv.  12).  Salvation,  then,  is  closely  connected 
with  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ.  Repentance,  for- 
giveness, the  endowment  of  the  Holy  Ghost — these 
three  gifts  are  all  received  through  Christ.  He  brings 
about  repentance,  for  He  comes,  as  St.  Peter  says  to 
the  Jews,  "  to  bless  you,  in  turning  away  every  one  of 
you  from  your  iniquities  "  (iii.  26) ;  and  He  is  exalted 
"to  give  repentance  to  Israel"  (v.  31).  This  must 
mean  that  He  leads  those  who  submit  to  Him  into 
a  contrite,  penitent  state  of  mind.  Then  He  grants 
forgiveness.  Men  are  urged  to  rej^ent  and  be  bap- 
tised in  the  name  of  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins 
(ii.  38).  Jesus  is  appointed  to  give  remission  of  sins 
(v.  31).  Therefore  He  is  a  "  Saviour."  He  is  also 
"  the  Prince  of  life,"  because  He  bestows  the  positive 
gift  of  life  (iii.  15).  But  the  new,  special,  most 
significant  blessing  received  through  Jesus  Christ  is 
the  endowment  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (ii.  38).  Various 
secondary  boons  also  accompany  the  gospel  :  thus  the 
healing  of  a  lame  man  is  an  illustration  of  the  power 
for  good  that  dw^ells  in  the  name,  2.e.,  that  springs 
from  the  authority,  of  our  Lord  (iii.  16). 

The  Apostle  is  careful  to  point  out  the  conditions 
on  which  these  boons  are  offered.  The  first  is  the 
action  of  the  human  will  in  repentance.  While  Christ 
gives  repentance,  men  are  exhorted  to  exercise  the  gift. 
They  must  still  turn  with  an  effort,  although  the 
power  to  do  so  comes  from  Christ.  Another  condition 
is  expressed  by  the  rite  of  baptism.  Therefore 
St.   Peter  says,  "  Repent  ye,  and  be  baptised  every 

9 


130  THE   THEOLOGY  OE 

one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  unto  remission 
of  your  sins"  (ii.  38).  Baptism  would  be  familiar  to 
all  who  knew  of  the  work  of  John  the  Baptist.  It 
would  plainly  signify  the  washing  away  of  the  old 
manner  of  life  by  an  open  act  of  renunciation  of  the 
past ;  its  reference  to  the  name  of  Christ  would  also 
suggest  consecration  to  Him.  The  convert  publicly 
and  confessedly  gave  himself  up  to  Christ  by  sub- 
mitting to  the  rite.  But  that  this  external  ordinance 
was  not  in  itself  an  essential  condition  for  the  reception 
of  Christ's  highest  gifts  is  proved  by  the  fact  that 
Cornelius  and  his  friends  were  baptised  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  before  they  had  been  baptised  with  water. 
Faith  is  not  so  clearly  expounded  in  these  sermons 
among  the  conditions  of  salvation  as  it  is  in  St.  Paul's 
writings,  where  it  stands  alone,  the  one  supreme 
requisite,  the  sole  human  condition  of  justification. 
But  it  is  implied  in  the  act  of  submission  to  baptism, 
and  it  is  expressly  named  as  the  condition  on  which 
the  lame  man  at  the  temple  was  healed  (iii.  16). 

II.    THE   EPISTLE   OF   ST.   JAMES 

It  would  be  manifestly  unreasonable  to  assume 
that  St.  James  knew  no  more  Christian  truth  than 
he  set  forth  in  his  one  brief  letter,  especially  as 
his  purpose  in  writing  was  to  offer  practical  advice, 
not  to  expound  a  creed.  Nevertheless,  remembering 
how,  whenever  St.  Paul  and  St.  John  had  occasion  to 
write  with  an  equally  practical  aim  in  view,  they 
could  not  refrain  from  alluding  to  some  of  those 
)r    ideas   of    which   we   have   never   a   hint   in 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  131 

St.  James,  are  we  not  bound  to  conclude  that  his 
whole  conception  of  Christianity  was  more  elemen- 
tary and  less  speculative  than  that  of  the  later 
New  Testament  writers  ?  In  one  direction,  how^ever, 
the  primitive  nature  of  the  Epistle  contributes  very 
materially  to  its  value.  St.  James  keeps  remarkably 
close  to  the  ethical  teaching  of  our  Lord ;  he  gives 
us  more  echoes  of  the  words  of  Jesus  than  can  be 
traced  through  the  whole  range  of  the  other  New 
Testament  epistles. 

The  teaching  of  St.  James  is  all  shaped  and  coloured 
by  the  fact  that  throughout  he  regards  the  Christian 
religion  in  the  light  of  a  perfected  law.  Here  the 
question  is  raised,  Does  he  mean  the  old  Jewish 
law,  or  is  he  simply  designating  the  sum  of  Christian 
principles  under  the  title  "  law  "  ?  His  quotation  of 
definite  commandments  suggests  the  former  view 
{e.g.,  James  ii.  10,  11)  j  but  his  description  of  the  law 
itself  favours  the  latter.  Thus  he  characterises  it 
as  a  "  perfect "  law — apparently  in  distinction  from 
another  law,  which  can  only  be  the  Mosaic  law,  and 
yet  which  is  imperfect ;  and  then  he  calls  it  the  law 
"of  liberty"  (i.  25) — a  phrase  which  seems  to  indicate  a 
law  voluntarily  accepted  and  obeyed  from  an  internal 
desire,  not  merely  under  external  compulsion,  cor- 
responding to  Jeremiah's  great  thought  of  the  law 
written  on  the  heart,  and  implying  the  liberty  which 
alwaj^s  accompanies  the  obedience  that  is  prompted 
by  love.  St.  James  seems  to  be  following  our  Lord's 
teaching  of  the  fulfilment  of  law,  a  reference  to  which 
may  reconcile  the  two  views.  He  is  not  thinking  of 
a  law   radically  different  from  that  of  his  fathers  ; 


132  THE  THEOLOGY   OF 

he  is  contemplating  the  old  venerated  Torah  of  Israel, 
carried  up  to  perfection  by  Christ,  so  that  its  under- 
lying principles  are  brought  to  light,  fully  developed, 
and  reahsed  in  conduct.  Attempts  have  been  made 
to  separate  the  ceremonial  from  the  moral  laM^  in 
this  relation.  St.  James  does  not  indicate  any  such 
distinction.  He  never  says  that  the  ceremonial  law 
has  been  superseded,  and  we  have  no  reason  to  think 
that  he  did  not  keep  it.  But,  then,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  is  a  most  significant  fact  that  he  never 
includes  it  in  his  admonitions,  never  even  alludes 
to  it.  A  Pharisee  would  have  directed  his  most 
earnest  exhortations  to  this  point.  Plainly,  then, 
St.  James  is  far  from  Pharisaism.  He  rather 
reminds  us  of  the  attitude  of  the  prophets  who 
preferred  justice  and  mercy  to  ritual  and  sacrifice. 
With  him,  as  with  Christ,  the  true  ritual  of  worship 
{Opy](rK€La)  consists  in  deeds  of  kindness  and  the 
maintenance  of  purity  (i.  27).  Even  though  it  is 
not  formally  abandoned,  the  law  of  ceremonies  must 
fade  away  by  degrees  in  the  atmosphere  of  these 
more   real  and  human  interests. 

In  opposition  to  the  observation  of  the  perfect 
law  of  liberty  stands  the  dreadful  fact  of  sin,  the 
genesis  and  history  of  which  are  briefly  sketched  by 
St.  James.  As  to  its  parentage,  he  distinctly  teaches 
that  this  cannot  be  traced  back  to  God,  who  neither 
tempts  nor  is  tempted  (i.  13).  Sin  springs  from  the 
evil  impulses  of  human  nature.  Every  man  is 
tempted  by  his  own  desires  (tScas  iTnOvfXLas,  vers. 
14,  15).  The  seat  of  these  desires  is  the  bodily 
organism    (iv.    1).      How    the    desires    come   to    be 


THE   NFAV  TESTAMENT  133 

there  St.  James  does  not  say ;  so  he  leaves  the 
dark  question  of  the  origin  of  evil  unanswered, 
excepting  negatively,  in  forbidding  us  to  trace  it  to 
Clod.  He  makes  no  reference  to  the  sin  of  Adam 
and  its  effect  on  the  race.  The  thought  of  one's 
"  own "  desires  leading  to  sin  might  suggest  the 
notion  of  hereditary  evil,  or,  at  all  events,  it  might 
lead  us  to  suppose  that  evil  is  innate.  But  then 
St.  James  does  not  call  the  desires  sins;  on  the 
contrary,  he  plainly  implies  that  they  are  not  in 
themselves  sinful,  because  sin  only  appears  at  a 
later  stage,  as  the  child  of  desire — like  the  foul 
worm  that  is  produced  by  an  inoffensive  insect. 
To  account  for  this  new  thing  we  must  admit  an- 
other factor — the  human  will  in  which  the  desire 
breeds.  St.  James  does  not  directly  name  the  will, 
it  is  true ;  but  his  tone  of  admonition  clearly  assumes 
its  existence.  He  is  not  a  fatalist  diagnosmg  the 
inevitable  symptoms  of  evil  regarded  only  as  disease ; 
he  assumes  the  attitude  of  a  moralist,  warning  his 
readers  "against  the  indulgence  of  selfish  desires  which 
lead  to  sin.  In  one  place  he  mentions  the  de\dl  as 
a  provoker  of  sin.  This  would  suggest  that  the 
desires  previously  noted  may  have  been  excited  by 
the  tempter.  Still,  the  responsibility  for  actual  sin 
cannot  be  shifted  over  to  Satan,  because  he  may  be 
resisted,  and  when  he  is  resisted  he  will  flee  (iv.  7). 
So  here  again  the  ultimate  responsibility  is  to  be 
traced  back  to  the  free  action  of  man.  Lastly,  the 
world  is  referred  to  as  a  source  of  defilement  (i.  27). 
We  cannot  attribute  to  St.  James  anything  like  a 
Manichsean  horror  of  the  physical  universe.    By  "  the 


134  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

world"  the  early  Christians  meant  human  society 
in  its  alienation  from  God  with  its  corrupt  habits 
and  fatal  fascinations.  They  who  are  most  deeply 
immersed  in  the  affairs  of  this  evil  human  world 
are  most  liable  to  its  deadly  snares.  To  St.  James 
the  rich  appear  to  constitute  a  cruel,  wicked  section 
of  society ;  while  God's  chosen  people  are  to  be  found 
among  the  poor ;  and,  in  point  of  fact,  the  early 
Christians  were  for  the  most  part  persons  of  the  humbler 
classes  of  society.  This  reminds  us  of  the  teaching 
of  our  Lord  when  He  spoke  of  the  impossibility  of 
rich  men  being  saved  without  a  miracle  (Mark  x.  25). 
St.  James  has  been  called  an  Ebionite  on  account 
of  these  two  characteristics  of  his  teaching — his 
adhesion  to  the  law,  and  his  denunciation  of  the 
rich.  The  title  is  an  anachronism ;  but  the  sect 
which  in  later  times  was  known  by  it  sprang  from 
the  Church  party  of  which  St.  James  had  been  the 
leader,  and  their  teaching  may  be  described  as  an 
exaggeration  of  his  tendencies. 

With  St,  James  the  final  outcome  of  sin  is  death 
(James  i,  15) — a  dark  and  dreadful  idea  that  i-ecurs 
in  all  the  New  Testament  writers. 

Some  critics  have  contended  that  St.  James  does 
not  really  advance  beyond  Judaism  into  true  Chris- 
tianity. Certainly  he  never  mentions  the  "  gospel/' 
and  yet  he  has  an  evangelic  faith,  although  he  does 
not  make  it  his  business  to  preach  it  in  an  epistle 
addressed  to  fellow- Christians,  men  and  women 
already  evangelised.  Thus  he  teaches  the  forgiveness 
of  sins  (v.  15).  The  sinner  can  be  converted  from 
the  error  of  his  ways,  his  soul  saved  from  death,  and 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  1^5 

his  multitude  of  sins  covered  (ver.  20).  The  im- 
mediate application  of  this  great  truth  is  to  the  case 
of  an  unfaithful  Christian,  whom  his  brothers  are 
exhorted  to  reclaim  (ver.  19).  But  it  is  impossible  to 
limit  it  to  one  particular  class.  Then  with  St.  James, 
as  with  St.  John,  the  Christian  life  begins  in  a  new 
birth ;  but  what  is  most  peculiar  to  the  earlier  wiiter 
in  this  connection  is  that  the  origin  of  the  new  birth 
is  attributed  to  the  "  word"  of  God  (i.  18) — a  thought 
which  may  be  traced  back  to  our  Lord's  teaching  in 
the  parable  of  the  Sower,  where  the  seed  is  "  the 
word"  (Mark  iv.  14).  According  to  St.  James,  the 
word  is  "  implanted  "  (James  i.  21)— an  idea  which 
again  suggests  Jeremiah's  new  covenant  with  the 
law  written  in  the  heart.  Thus  the  word  has  become 
internal ;  it  is  comprehended  and  appropriated  as  an 
intimate  principle  of  life.  It  has  been  implanted  by 
God,  who  is  the  Originator  of  the  new  life.  Some 
have  asserted  that  this  vital  "  word"  is  just  the  well- 
known  old  law.*  But  St.  James  does  not  say  so,  and 
he  leaves  us  free  to  think  that  he  agrees  with  the 
Apostles  in  treating  the  preaching  of  Christ  as  the 
method  through  which  people  are  led  into  the  king- 
dom. If  we  take  this  view,  the  "  word  "  will  be  just 
the  gospel  message.  St.  James  makes  no  reference 
to  the  death  of  Christ,  or  any  objective  condition  of 
redemption.  He  simply  connects  the  forgiveness  of 
sins  with  prayer  (v.  15). 

The  part  of  the  Epistle  which  has  attracted  most 
discussion  is  that  in  which  its  author  considers  the 
mutual  relationship  of  faith  and    works,  and   their 
♦  E.g..  Beyschlag,  vol.  i..  p.  340, 


136  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

connection  with  justification.  Although  it  was  once 
regarded  by  many  as  a  direct  assault  on  St.  Paul,  a 
more  careful  criticism  has  rejected  that  verdict.  But 
now,  while  admitting  that  St.  James  was  not  oppos- 
ing St.  Paul's  doctrine,  but  only  an  antinomianism 
which  the  Apostle  would  certainly  have  repudiated, 
Pfleiderer  has  suggested  that  the  Epistle  was 
written  in  opposition  to  a  Gnostic  perversion  of 
Paulinism,  which  the  author  himself  mistook  for  the 
system  of  St.  Paul  * — a  wild  and  needless  conjecture  ! 
St.  James  does  not  speak  lightly  of  faith.  On  the 
contrary,  he  honours  it  highly,  emphatically  desig- 
nating the  Christian  religion  "  the  faith  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ"  (n.  1).  He  commends  some  who  are 
poor  in  this  world's  goods,  because  they  are  "  rich  in 
faith"  (ver.  5).  He  encourages  the  prayer  of  faith 
both  at  the  beginning  of  his  Epistle  (i.  6)  and  near 
the  close  (v.  15).  Great  distress  and  trouble  arise 
because  men  will  not  thus  pray  (iv.  2).  Nevertheless, 
faith,  standing  alone,  will  not  save  a  man.  Works 
must  go  with  faith  in  efiecting  the  perfect  result 
(ii.  22).  No  doubt  this  is  not  St.  Paul's  way  of 
writing  ;  but  if  St.  James  wrote  before  the  Apostle, 
he  could  not  be  answering  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  and 
clearly  he  had  quite  other  thoughts  in  his  mind. 
There  were  pretentious,  hollow  characters  in  the 
Church,  given  to  much  talking,  but  negligent  of 
their  duty ;  and  to  condemn  these  people  St.  James 
denounces  the  faith  that  is  without  works,  as  well 
as  the  words  that  are  without  deeds  (i.  23).  It 
is  plain  that  the  faith  he  is  here  thinking  of  is  the 
*  Urchristentliuwj  p.  874  flP. 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  137 

bare  intellectual  belief,  which  was  witnessed  in  the 
demons  when  the  possessed  trembled  at  the  Divine 
name  uttered  by  the  exorcist  (ii.  19) — a  very 
different  thing  from  the  soul's  grasp  of  God  and 
Christ,  which  St.  Paul  understands  by  faith.  ''  Can 
M(i<  faith  save  ?  "  asks  St.  James  (ver.  14).  But  he 
knows  of  the  other  faith  that  can  save — the  faith 
that  is  found  together  with  works. 

St.  James  is  far  from  the  Pharisees'  doctrine  of 
salvation  by  works.  In  the  first  place,  with  St.  James  ^ 
works  are  not  ceremonies  of  Jewish  ritual,  but  deeds 
of  Christian  brotherhood.  Then  faith  must  be  asso- 
ciated with  these  works  to  give  them  any  efficacy. 
Lastly,  St.  James  does  not  describe  the  two  as  though 
they  were  on  a  level — like  a  pair  of  horses  running 
abreast  to  draw  a  chariot  by  their  combined  energy. 
They  are  vitally  related.  Faith  without  works  is 
"  dead  in  itself"  (ii.  17);  therefore  we  may  conclude, 
conversely,  faith  with  works  is  alive.  So  that  when 
St.  James  tells  us  that  faith  without  works  is  "barren" 
(ver.  20),  we  must  not  understand  him  to  mean  that 
works  are  the  fertilising  principle  of  faith — a  con- 
fusing notion.  Evidently  his  idea  is  that,  since  woi'ks 
are  the  fruit  of  a  living,  healthy  faith,  their  absence 
is  a  proof  that  the  faith  must  be  ineffectual.  The 
works  are  important  as  tests  of  the  vitality  and 
vigour  of  the  faith.  Thus  he  writes,  '*  I  by  my  works 
will  shoio  thee  my  faith  "  (ver.  18).  The  works  really 
glorify  the  true,  living  faith  from  which  they  spring, 
while  at  the  same  time  they  distinguish  it  from  a  bare 
belief  in  dogmas,  which  is  totally  cUfferent. 

With  this  idea  of  faith  before  us  we  can  understand 


138  THE  THEOLOGY   OF 

St.  James's  doctrine  of  justification.  He  has  a  different 
phase  of  justification  before  him  from  that  which 
occupies  the  attention  of  St.  PauL  The  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  discusses  the  justification  of  the  sinner ; 
our  Epistle  is  concerned  with  the  justification  of  the 
righteous  man.  St.  Paul's  justification  emerges  at 
the  beginning  of  the  Christian  life;  St.  James's  is 
concerned  with  the  end — just  as  with  St.  James 
salvation  is  regarded  as  a  future  deliverance  (iv.  12). 
St.  Paul  is  most  anxious  to  show  how  a  sinful  man 
can  be  put  right  with  God.  Although  not  in  formal 
expression,  in  heart  and  belief  St.  James  is  essentially 
at  one  with  him  with  regard  to  this  great  first  step ; 
for  he  teaches  the  free  forgiveness  of  God  and  the  doc- 
trine of  Divine  grace  (i.  17;  v.  15),  only  he  does  not 
regard  these  things  forensically  as  involved  in  a  legal 
justification.  But  in  his  discussion  of  justification 
St.  James  has  in  view  the  case  of  Christian  people 
and  their  judgment  by  Christ  after  death  or  at  the 
second  advent,  when  their  faith  can  only  be  vindicated 
by  their  life.  The  bald  profession  of  piety,  the  glib 
use  of  unctuous  phrases,  or  the  purely  intellectual 
hold  of  a  correct  creed,  will  be  of  no  avail  before  the 
judgment-seat  of  Christ.  The  only  justification  for  a 
Christian  confession  is  Christian  conduct.  The  justi- 
fication of  good  people  which  is  here  discussed  is  a 
familiar  idea  in  the  Old  Testament ;  and  therefore 
the  use  of  the  term  "  justification  "  by  one  who  lived 
so  much  in  the  atmosphere  of  the  ancient  Scriptures 
as  St.  James  is  quite  natural,  without  any  reference 
to  that  totally  different  phase  of  justification  which 
at  a  later  time  came  to  be  expounded  by  St.  Paul, 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  139 

Although  his  Ej^istle  is  full  of  the  spirit  and 
teaching  of  Christ,  St.  James  only  mentions  our  Lord 
distinctly  in  two  places,  or  at  most  in  three  (i.  1  ; 
ii.  1  ;  and  perhaps  v.  15).  He  says  nothing  of  the 
pre-existence ;  but  we  can  base  no  argument  on  mere 
silence  regarding  a  topic  for  the  introduction  of  which 
there  was  no  immediate  occasion.  Jesus  is  "  Christ " 
— the  Messiah ;  the  title  has  become  part  of  His 
name.  He  is  ''  our  Lord,"  and  St.  James  is  His 
"  bondservant '"  (Sot^Xos).  This  is  the  more  striking 
if  the  writer  is  the  brother  of  Jesus ;  he  is  too 
humble  even  to  name  the  close  relationship.  Then 
he  calls  Jesus  "  the  Lord  of  Glory,"  a  title  which 
cannot  but  suggest  the  idea  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ, 
especially  when  we  contrast  it  with  the  very  different 
style  in  which  so  great  a  prophet  as  Elijah  is  signifi- 
cantly designated  as  "a  man  of  like  passions  with 
us"  (v.  17).  Evidently  to  the  writer  Jesus  Christ 
stands  in  a  unique  and  immeasurably  higher  position. 
Moreover,  St.  James  uses  the  Old  Testament  title 
"  the  Lord  "  in  such  a  way  that  he  appears  to  mean 
by  it  both  "  Jesus  Christ  "  and  "  God  "  in  the  same 
connection.  Thus  a  sick  man  is  to  be  anointed  "  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord,"  and  "  the  Lord  "  shall  raise 
him  up  (vers.  14,  15).  Now  we  know  that  Christian 
cures  were  wrought  in  the  name  of  Christ  {e.g.j 
Acts  iv.  10),  and  therefore  the  reference  must  be  to 
His  name.  But  just  before  this  we  read  of  prophets 
who  spake  '•  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  "  (James  v.  10) ; 
of  "the  end  of  the  Lord" — i.e.,  the  end  God  brought 
to  Job's  tragedy ;  and  "  how  the  Lord  is  full  of  pity, 
and  merciful"   (ver.   11);    in    all  of  which  cases  the 


140  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

reference  is  plainly  to  Jehovah.  A  person  who  did 
not  accept  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  even  if  he  were 
a  careless,  inaccurate  writer,  would  certainly  shrink 
fi'om  confusion  on  such  a  vital  point  as  this  ;  and 
St.  James's  words  cannot  be  accounted  for  except 
by  the  explanation  that  he  did  indeed  believe  in 
the  Divinity  of  our  Lord. 

Finally,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  St.  James  flashes  out 
occasional  brilliant  thoughts  on  the  character  and 
glory  of  God,  whom  he  names  poetically  "  Father  of 
Lights  "  (i.  17),  apparently  as  the  Maker  and  Preserver 
of  the  heavenly  bodies.  God  is  more  glorious  than 
these  His  works,  more  constant  than  the  calm, 
orderly  heavens ;  for  in  Him  is  "  no  variableness  " — 
like  that  of  the  changeable  moon  and  even  the  sun, 
which  is  subject  to  eclipse — and  "  no  shadow  caused 
by  turning,"  like  that  which  falls  on  the  earth  when 
by  the  revolution  of  the  heavens,  as  it  seems,  the 
sun  sinks  beneath  the  horizon.  While  the  glorious 
changelessness  of  God  is  thus  accentuated,  His 
Fatherhood  is  also  prominent  throughout  the  Epistle. 
Here  again,  as  with  his  ethics,  St.  James  follows 
the  teaching  of  Christ.  The  Supreme  is  "  our  God 
and  Father"  (i.  27),  "the  Lord  and  Father"  (iii.  9). 
The  Third  Person  of  the  Trinity  is  not  named  in 
the  Epistle ;  but  the  mention  of  heavenly  gifts,  such 
as  wisdom  from  above  (i.  5)  and  the  implanted  word 
(ver.  21),  suggests  the  exercise  of  precisely  the  same 
Divine  influence  as  that  which  is  elsewhere  expressly 
ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  141 


III.    LATER  PETRINE  THEOLOGY 
1    PETER 

The  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter  represents  a  decidedly 
more  advanced  stage  of  Christian  thought  than 
that  indicated  by  the  Apostle's  speeches  recorded  in 
Acts.  It  is  evidently  one  of  the  later  books  of  the 
New  Testament,  because  it  has  many  allusions  to 
passages  in  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and 
possibly  some  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  etc.* 
But  Reuss,  who  maintains  this  \dew,  has  nevertheless 
shown  clearly  that  St.  Peter's  Epistle  does  not  contain 
the  distinctive  characteristics  of  PauHne  theology. 
There  is  no  reference  to  the  great  antithesis  of  law 
and  gospel.  Righteousness  "is  treated  from  the 
ordinary  Old  Testament  point  of  view,  not  in  St. 
Paul's  peculiar  identification  of  it  with  justification." 
Faith  does  not  appear  as  the  ground  of  justification  ; 
the  object  of  it  is  the  hope  of  future  salvation ;  in 
fact,  hope  almost  takes  the  place  of  faith.  The 
frequent  and  pathetic  references  to  the  Passion  show 
a  marked  advance  of  thought  beyond  the  speeches ; 
but  while  the  Atonement  is  now  ascribed  to  our 
Lord's  suffering  and  death,  St.  Paul's  special  idea  of 
the  mystical   union  of  the  Christian  with   Christ  in 

*  Sec  Marcus  Dods,  Introd.,  p.  201.  The  reference  to  St. 
Paul  was  pointed  out  hy  Michaelis.  It  is  maintained  by 
Reuss,  Pfleiderer,  Ploltzraann,  Beyschlag,  etc.  On  the  other 
hand,  Weiss  holds  that  St.  Paul  quotes  1  Peter  !  Davidson 
gives  a  list  of  the  similar  passages  in  parallel  columns 
{Lit rod.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  414). 


142  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

death  and  resurrection  finds  no  place  here ;  the 
subject  is  treated  more  objectively,  and  the  relation  of 
Christian  conduct  to  it  is  found  in  direct,  conscious 
imitation.  These  facts  indicate  a  more  primitive  type 
of  theology ;  they  prove  that,  though  St.  Peter  has 
not  refrained  from  using  the  writings  of  his  great 
contemporary,  he  has  retained  his  own  individuality. 
It  is  remarkable  that  the  quotations  are  almost 
confined  to  practical  directions.  St.  Peter  makes  use 
of  St.  Paul's  ethical  teaching;  in  theology  he  still 
belongs  to  the  earlier  school.  Moreover,  while  he 
quotes  from  St.  Paul,  he  also  quotes  from  St.  James.* 
Still,  there  is  a  real  progress  of  thought,  which  is 
much  in  advance  of  that  in  the  Epistle  of  St,  James. 
The  thought  approaches  St.  Paul;  but  it  also  ap- 
proaches St.  John.  In  fact,  it  flows  in  the  course 
of  the  broadening  and  deepening  current  of  New 
Testament  theology. 

It  has  often  been  pointed  out  that  the  doctrinal 
peculiarity  of  Petrine  theology  is  its  treatment  of 
Christianity  as  a  fulfilment  of  Old  Testament  prophecy. 
This  marked  trait  of  the  speeches  reappeais  in  our 
Epistle.  But  the  history  has  moved  on,  the  circum- 
stances are  altered,  and  therefore  the  prophecies 
now  referred  to  are  of  another  order.  Writing  to 
Christians,  to  men  and  women  who  all  believe  in 
Christ,  and  who  are  grouped  together  in  a  new  society, 
the  Apostle  has  no  longer  any  occasion  to  demon- 
strate the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  ;  but  now  he  has  to 
show  that  the  promised  blessings  of  the  glorious 
Messianic  age  will  be  enjoyed  by  Christians.  Thus 
*  See  Marcus  Dods,  Introd.,  p.  201. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  143 

we  have  more  to  do  with  Old  Testament  utterances 
concerning  the  people  of  God  and  their  privileges. 
In  the  speeches  St.  Peter  proved  that  Jesus  was 
the  Messiah  in  spite  of  His  crucifixion ;  here  he 
argues  that  Christians  are  the  true  people  of  God 
in  spite  of  their  persecutions.  Thus  he  endeavours 
to  fortify  his  readers  by  reminding  them  of  their 
high  privileges  as  "  an  elect  race,  a  royal  priesthood, 
a  holy  nation,  a  people  for  God's  own  possession  "  (ii.  9). 
Accordingly,  while  the  speeches — dealing  more  with 
the  vindication  of  the  personal  claims  of  Christ — 
anticipated  His  second  advent,  the  Epistle  points 
forward  to  the  incorruptible  inheritance  of  Christians 
(i.  4),  and  cheers  the  martp's  and  confessors  with  a 
"  living  hope  "  (ver.  3).  The  chosen  people  now  include 
Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews ;  for  in  times  past  the 
readers  of  the  Epistle  "  were  no  people,"  *'  but  now  " 
they  ''are  the  people  of  God"  (ii.  10).  There  is  no 
indication  of  any  special  privilege  for  Jews;  on  the 
contrary,  all  the  promised  blessings  are  for  Christians 
generally,  with  no  thought  of  racial  distinction. 
They  who  are  thus  privileged  were  '*  called  "  by  God 
(i.  15),  they  are  His  "elect"  (i.  1);  but  their 
election  was  not  arbitrary,  it  was  "  according  to  the 
foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father  "  (ver.  2).* 

The  way  in  which  men  become  the  privileged  people 
of  God  is  described  rather  after  the  manner  of  St. 
James,  and  in  anticipation  of  St.  John's  teaching,  than 
according  to  St.  Paul's  way  of  representing  it.  The 
privilege  is  not  to  be  inherited  by  any  chosen  race,  as 
the  Jews  had  imagined.  The  means  of  acquu'ing  it  is 
*  Compare  Rom.  viii,  29. 


144  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

a  new  birth,  which  is  effected  by  God,  "  who  according 
to  His  great  mercy  begat  us  again  "  (i.  3).  So  Chris- 
tians are  ''  begotten  again  "  (ver.  23),  and  have  become 
"  new-born  babes  "  (ii.  2).  St.  Peter  may  have  heard 
of  the  discourse  with  Nicodemus  ;  his  allusion  to  new- 
born babes  also  suggests  a  reminiscence  of  our  Lord's 
impressive  lesson  from  the  little  child  whom  He  set  in 
the  midst  of  His  disciples  (Mark  ix.  36,  37). 

From  another  point  of  view  St.  Peter  describes  the 
process  by  which  Christians  pass  out  of  their  old 
state  into  the  new  privileges  as  a  "redemption" 
(1  Peter  i.  18).  This  points  back  to  the  earlier  condi- 
tion, while  the  idea  of  new  birth  looks  forward  to  the 
Christian  status.  The  bondage  from  which  men  are 
ledeemed  is  the  original  life  of  sin — •'  your  vain  manner 
of  life  handed  down  from  your  fathers"  (ibid.).  St. 
Peter  plainly  teaches  that  apart  from  Christ  men  live 
in  sin.  This  wickedness  must  be  put  away  (ii.  1),  on 
their  side,  by  their  own  effort  of  will,  though  in  the 
strength  of  the  new  birth.  Christians  are  like  sheep 
formerly  astray  which  have  returned  to  their  shepherd 
(ver.  25).  Sin  is  considered  especially  to  consist  in 
"  fleshly  lusts  which  war  against  the  soul  "  (ver.  11),  in 
regard  to  which  Christians  are  to  remember  that  as 
God's  chosen  people  they  are  pilgrims  and  sojourners, 
and  that  therefore  they  must  not  entangle  themselves 
in  the  vices  which  are  indulged  in  by  those  who  do  not 
pretend  to  be  other  :^han  citizens  of  the  earth.  Still, 
mental  sins  are  also  noted — guile,  hypocrisies,  envies, 
etc.  (ver.  1). 

Like  St.  James,  St.  Peter  sees  the  source  of  the 
new  life  in  "  the  word  of  God  "  (i.  23).     The  Apostle 


TFIE  NEW  TESTAMENT  145 

defines  this  as  "  good  tidings  which  was  preached 
unto  you  "  (i.  25).  Thus  the  new  life  is  brought  about 
through  the  reception  of  the  gospel.  It  oiiginates  in 
truth.  St.  Peter  also  speaks  of  our  being  begotten 
again  "  unto  a  living  hope  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ "  (ver.  3).  This  life,  then,  springs  directly  out 
of  our  Lord's  resurrection— an  idea  which  is  expressed 
by  St.  Paul  when  he  speaks  of  our  being  raised  with 
Christ  (e.^.,  Col.  iii.  1).  Therefore  the  word  which 
regenerates  must  be  the  gospel  which  tells  of  the 
risen  Christ. 

Further,  this  regenerating  word  "liveth  and 
abideth  " ;  it  is  an  "  incorruptible  "  seed  (1  Peter  i.  23), 
just  as  the  inheritance  is  "  incorruptible  "  (ver.  4 — like 
Christ's  incorruptible  treasures  in  heaven,  Matt.  ^^i.  20), 
and  the  blood  of  Christ  which  redeems  us  is  "in- 
corruptible "  (I  Peter  i.  18).  Thus  we  may  learn  that 
the  new  life  has  lasting  energy — in  accordance  with 
what  we  lead  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament  of 
^^  eternal  life."  Still,  the  life  must  be  continually 
nourished  ;  and  the  source  of  its  nourishment,  like 
the  first  seed  of  its  being,  is  truth — "  the  spiritual 
milk  which  is  without  guile  "  (ii.  2). 

The  new  life  which  is  thus  enjoyed  by  Christians 
depends  entirely  on  the  goodness  of  God.  It  is  He 
who  begat  us,  and  He  did  so  of  "  His  great  mercy  " 
(i.  3).  Christians  have  "obtained  mercy"  (ii.  10). 
The  continuance  of  the  Christian  life  depends  on  the 
grace  of  God,  but  He  "  giveth  grace  to  the  humble  " 
(v.  5).  We  are  to  stand  fast  in  the  true  gi-ace  of 
God  (ver.  12).  There  are  various  Divine  gifts,  and 
Christians   are   "  stewards   of  the  manifold  grace  of 

10 


146  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

God"  (iv.  10).  There  is  yet  more  future  favour  to 
be  looked  for.  We  read  of  a  "  grace  that  is  to  be 
brought  unto  you  at  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ " 
(i.  13),  and  of  Christians  being  "  heirs  of  the  grace  of 
life  "  (iii.  7).  St.  Peter  does  not  say  one  word  about 
salvation  through  the  works  of  the  law  :  he  attributes 
the  beginning,  the  course,  and  the  completion  of  the 
Christian  life  to  the  favour  and  goodness  of  God.  It 
is  appropriated  by  the  individual  in  his  baptism,  as 
Noah  was  saved  in  the  flood — i.e.,  in  both  cases  the 
water  marks  the  crisis,  though  St.  Peter  is  careful  to 
note  that  the  really  important  thing  is  not  physical 
ablution,  but  "  the  interrogation  of  a  good  conscience 
towards  God"  (ver.  21). 

St.  Peter  accentuates  the  idea  of  the  Fatherhood  of 
God.     He  is  "the  Father"  (i.  2) ;  Ave  are  to  address 
Him  in  prayer  pointedly  "  as  Father  "  (ver.  17) ;  and  to 
commit  our  souls  to  Him   in  well  doing  as  "  unto 
a  faithful  Creator"  (iv.  19).     Unlike  St.  James,  St. 
Peter  has  several  allusions  to  the  Holy  Spirit.     He  is 
"the   Spirit  of  glory"  (ver.  14);  He  is  "  sent  forth 
from  heaven  "  (i.  12) ;  He  "  resteth  upon  "  Christians 
—  a  phrase   that  reminds  us  of    the    Spirit    like   a 
dove  that  "  abode  "  upon  Christ  (John  i.  32) ;  He  is 
the  source  of  sanctification  (1  Peter  i.  2).     St.  Peter 
once  associates  the  three — the  Father,  the  Spirit,  and 
Jesus  Christ  (ibid.).     The  arrangement  is  unusual,  but 
it  has  no  doctrinal  significance ;  the  Apostle  is  think- 
ing of  the  Order  of  Christian  experience,  and  accord- 
ingly he  places  the  sanctification  by  the  Spirit  before 
the  obedience  offered  to  Jesus  Christ  as  Lord  which 
depends  on  it.     He  does  not  say  that  the  Holy  Spirit 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  147 

is  sent  by  Christ,  but  he  unites  the  Spirit  with  Christ 
in  a  manner  that  is  peculiar  to  himself  when  he  calls 
the  Spirit  that  moved  in  the  prophets  ^'  the  Spirit  of 
Christ"  (i.  11). 

Jesus  is  not  only  designated  the  Christ.     As  with 
St.  James,  the  title  "Christ"  is  now  a  proper  name 
for  our  Lord.     He  is  even  called  simply  "  Christ  " — 
quite  a  favourite  expression  with  St.  Peter  {e.g.^  iii. 
15,  16,  18,  etc.).     Jesus  Christ  was  a  real  man,  who 
suffered  and  was  put  to  death  in  the  flesh.     But  in 
His  spirit  He  was  quickened  (ver.  18) ;  and  the  state- 
ment of  this  fact  hints   at  some  peculiar  greatness 
residing   in    His  spiritual  nature.     Although  He  is 
not  called  "  the  Son  of  God  "  in  so  many  words,  God 
is  distinctly  described  as  ''  the  Father  of   our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,"  which  expresses  the  same  truth,  and 
the  more  pointedly  inasmuch  as  the  general  Father- 
hood   of    God  is   prominent    in   the    Epistle.     God's 
fatherly  relation  to   Christ  is  of  another  order,  and 
quite  unique.     In  ii.    3   an  Old  Testament  reference 
to  Jehovah  as  the  Lord  is  applied  to  Jesus  Christ. 
Much   controversy   has   been   excited   by   a    curious 
phrase    alluded   to   above — "  the    Spirit   of    Christ " 
(i.  11),  used  as  a  title  for  the  Spirit  which  inspired 
the  ancient  Hebrew  prophets.      Weiss  and  Beyschlag 
understand   this  to  be  the  Spirit   wdiich  afterwards 
rested  on  our  Lord,  and  dwelt  with  Him  during  His 
earthly  life;    but  it  is  more  generally  held  that  the 
personal  Spirit  of  Christ  is  referred  to,  and  therefore 
that  the  passage  teaches   His  pre-existence.     Weiss 
argues  that  it  would  be  incongruous  for  the  histori- 
cal Christ  to  be  named  in  the  same  passage  as  the 


148  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

pre-existent  Spirit  of  Christ — the  "  Spirit  of  Christ " 
testifying  to  the  "  sufferings  of  Christ  "  ;  but  Lechler 
replies  that  if  Xptoros  both  times  denotes  the  per- 
sonal Christ,  first  before  and  then  after  His  historical 
appearance,  the  name  is  not  applied  to  different 
subjects.  Then  it  is  to  be  noted  that  Christ  is  said 
to  have  preached  to  the  spirits  in  prison  by  His 
Spirit,  which  must  be  His  personal  Spirit ;  for  in  this 
He  is  said  to  be  quickened  after  having  been  put  to 
death  in  the  flesh.  Thus  it  seems  to  be  in  harmony 
with  other  phrases  in  the  Epistle  to  read  the  dis- 
puted expression  as  a  statement  that  it  was  really 
the  Divine  person  of  Christ  Himself,  previous  to  the 
incarnation,  that  inspired  the  prophets.  The  pre- 
existence  of  our  Lord  seems  also  hinted  at  in  the 
statement  that  Christ,  who  was  foreknown  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world,  was  manifested  also  at 
the  end  of  the  times  (v^er.  20). 

The  most  remarkable  indication  of  progress  of 
thought  in  St.  Peter's  teaching  is  seen  in  his  treat- 
ment of  the  sufferings  of  our  Lord.  In  the  speeches 
he  had  shown  that  these  sufferings  had  been  predicted 
and  had  taken  place  within  the  Divine  plan.*  But 
he  had  gone  no  further ;  he  had  not  offered  any 
explanation  of  the  plan,  nor  had  he  said  that  any 
good  results  w^ere  brought  about  by  what  our  Lord 
endured.  Still,  the  very  fact  that  the  sufferings  of 
Christ  were  designed  might  have  suggested  that  they 
must  have  served  some  purpose,  although  that  purpose 
was  not  as  yet  discernible.  Then  the  favourite  refer- 
ence to  Isaiah  liii.  to  justify  faith  in  a  suffering  Messiah 
*  See  p.  123. 


THE  KEW  TESTAMENT  149 

might  have  furnished  the  key  to  the  mystery.  Very 
possibly  it  did  so  later  on.  At  all  events,  in  his  epistle 
St.  Peter  distinctly  teaches  that  there  was  a  purpose 
in  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  that  this  purpose  was 
the  redemption  of  men  from  sin. 

In  this  connection  he  writes  of  the  death  of  Christ 
(iii.  18)  and  His  blood  (i.  19),  laying  peculiar  stress 
on  His  sufferings.     We  have  here  a  very  touching 
trait  of  the  mind  of  the  disciple,  who,  having  witnessed 
those  sufferings  and  the  gentleness  and  strength  with 
which  they  had  been  borne,  could  never  efface  from 
his    memory  the   sublime  and    awful  picture  of    his 
Lord's  passion.     Thus,  while  St.  Paul — who  probably 
had    not    been    present    at    the    crucifixion — simply 
connects  our  redemption  with  the  death  of   Christ, 
St.  Peter  is  constiained  to  associate  it  more  with  the 
previous    sufferings   and   our   Lord's   wonderful    en- 
durance of  them.     His  passion  was  definitely  for  our 
benefit,  and    that    in    a    peculiar    way.     He  was  a 
righteous  One  suftering  on  behalf  of  the  unrighteous, 
and  for  their  good   (iii.  18).     Moreover,  the  death  of 
Christ  was  sacrificial ;  He  is  compared  to  a  lamb  with- 
out blemish  and  without  spot  (i.  19  ;  see  Isa.  liii.  7). 
He    bare    our    sins     in    His   body   upon   the    wood 
(1    Peter   ii.   24).      Here   the  cross  takes    the  place 
of    an    altar,   while    Christ    is    evidently    considered 
to  be  a  Sin-offering  on  which  the  sins  of  men  have 
been  laid.     Thus  it  is  possible  for  His  precious  blood 
to  redeem   us   (i.   19).      The  very  reference   to   the 
"  blood "  shows    that  the  redemption  is  sacrificial — 
i.e.,  that  we   are   redeemed   as  by  a   sacrifice,   just 
as  under  the  law  forfeited  lives   were  redeemed  by 


150  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

sacrifices,  the  application  of  which  was  made  by 
sprinkling  blood. 

The  direct  result  of  this  redemption  is  that  its 
subjects  are  freed  from  their  old  sinful  habits  (i.  18), 
and  are  "  healed "  (ii.  24).  The  purpose  of  Christ's 
death  was  that  He  might  bring  us  to  God  (iii.  10), 
and  that  we  might  "live  unto  righteousness"  (ii.  24). 
Thus  the  deliverance  is  not  so  much  from  punishment 
as  from  sin  itself ;  this  agrees  with  the  notion  of 
salvation  as  regeneration  rather  than  as  justification. 
There  is  nothing  contradictory  to  the  more  Pauline 
ideas  here,  but  they  are  not  brought  forward  by 
St.  Peter.  In  reflecting  on  this  great  subject,  he  uses 
it  as  a  motive.  We  are  to  die  to  our  sins  (ibid.), 
and  live  unto  righteousness  under  the  influence  of 
the  Cross  of  Christ.  Then  our  Lord's  courageous  and 
patient  sufferiug  is  an  example  for  the  persecuted. 
The  lesson  is  the  more  impressive  because  the  suffering 
was  on  our  behalf.  "  Christ  also  sufiered  /or  you, 
leaving  you  an  example,  that  ye  should  follow  His 
steps"   (ii.   21). 

In  one  famous  passage  St.  Peter  refers  to  a  saving 
mission  of  Christ  to  the  world  of  the  dead.  After 
His  death  He  went  in  spirit  to  preach  to  the  spirits 
in  prison  (iii.  19,  20).  The  contemporaries  of  Noah 
are  mentioned  as  most  ancient  and  proverbially 
wicked  men,  who  were  lost  when  the  patriarch  was 
saved.  They  are  called  "  spirits,"  because  the  truly 
dead,  those  who  have  not  the  life  of  God  in  them,  are 
nowhere  described  in  the  Bible  as  enjoying  their  full 
resurrection  life  after  death,  and  certainly  as  yet  they 
could  have   enjoyed    no   resurrection.      They  are  in 


THE  XEW  TESTAMENT  151 

prison  for  their  bin — i.e.,  in  the  place  of  punishment. 
Yet  even  to  them  Christ  preacliQd.  He  can  have 
preached  nothing  but  a  gospel,  and  that  He  did  so  is 
jilainly  shown  a  little  later,  where  we  read,  ^'  The 
gospel  was  preached  even  to  the  dead "  (iv.  6). 
This  mysterious  episode  must  have  been  very  brief, 
for  Christ  was  duly  raised  from  the  dead  (i.  3),  and 
then  He  passed  into  the  heavens,  there  to  exercise 
exalted  powers  of  govtrnment  (iii.   22). 

2    PETER    AND    JUDE 

Inasmuch  as  the  authorship  of  2  Peter  is  seriously 
controverted,  it  would  not  be  wise  to  appeal  to  its 
authority  for  theological  guidance  concerning  any 
matters  in  which  it  did  not  echo  what  was  taught 
elsewhere  on  a  less  questionable  apostolic  basis. 
Evidently  the  writer  largely  cpiotes  the  little  Epistle 
of  St.  Jude,  and  the  two  Epistles  should  be  read 
together.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  is  no  important 
theological  idea  in  either  of  them  which  may  not 
be  found  in  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament. 
They  both  bear  witness  to  the  rise  of  error  in  the 
Church,  and  they  both  associate  this  error  with  loose 
morals,  so  that  in  warning  their  readers  against 
apostasy  their  drift  is  practical.  Neither  of  them  is 
moulded  to  any  serious  degree  on  distinctly  Pauline 
or  Johannine  ideas ;  and  although  these  Epistles  give 
evidence  of  having  been  written  later  than  most  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  contain  echoes  of  St.  Paul,  on  the 
whole  they  reflect  the  primitive  type  of  thought  which 
we  associate  with  St.  James  and  St.  Peter.     Great 


152  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

weight  is  attached  to  prophecy  as  a  guide  (2  Peter 
i.  19  ;  iii.  2),  because  it  is  inspired  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  is  not  an  arbitrary  invention  of  man's 
(i.  21).  Jesus  is  Christ  and  Lord  (ver.  2),  and  He  is 
distinctively  known  as  ^'  Saviour  "  {e.g.,  vcr.  11  ;  ii.  20  ; 
iii.  2).  He  is  God's  beloved  Son,  attested  by  a  Voice 
from  heaven  (i.  17).  Although  the  doctrine  of  the 
Cross  is  not  directly  stated,  it  is  plainly  held,  in  the 
later  Pe trine  sense,  as  a  principle  of  redemption, 
because  the  apostates  are  accused  of  "  denying  even 
the  Master  that  bought  them  "  (ii.  1).  The  Christian 
life  depends  on  grace  (iii.  18).  There  seems  to  be 
one  allusion  to  the  God -given  righteousness  enjoyed 
by  faith — reminding  us  of  St.  Paul  (i.  1);  but  the 
importance  of  right  knowledge  is  more  insisted  on 
(e.g.,  i.  2,  5).  This  knowledge  is  best  when  it 
is  attained  by  the  experience  of  the  interior  life 
(ver.  19).  Sin  is  a  bondage  in  the  guise  of  liberty 
(ii.  19).  The  punishment  of  sia  is  destruction  (vers. 
1,  3,  12).  The  ''  day  of  the  Lord"  will  bring  a  great 
judgment  and  overthrow  of  the  old  order,  which 
will  be  followed  by  a  glorious  future — "  new  heavens 
and  a  new  earth,  wdierein  dwelleth  righteousness" 
(iii.  13). 

THE  PAULINE  TYPE 

I.     THE  OPJGIN  AND  DEVELOPMENT 
OF    ST.'  PAUL'S   THEOLOGY 

St.  Paul  is  the  great  theologian  of  the  New 
Testament.  His  inspired  ideas  have  shaped  the 
thought  of  Christendom.     In  examining  his  teaching 


THE  XEW  TESTAMENT  153 

we  have  to  inquire  whether  this  stupendous  result 
was  efftcted  on  the  lines  of   a  normal  evolution  of 
the  truth  involved  in  the  previous  work  of  Christ ; 
or  whether,  as  some  have  supposed,  it  was  of  a  new 
and   foreign   nature,  in  which  case  the  Christianity 
which  conquered  the  Koman  world  cannot  be  called 
the  doctrine  of  Jesus.     The  answer  to  this  inquiry  will 
not  be  discovered  by  the  simple  process  of  setting 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  side  by  side,  say,  with  the 
Epistle  to  the  Komans,  and  noting  the  agreements  or 
divergences  between  them.     Three  guiding  thoughts 
must  be  borne  in  mind.     First,  Christianity  consists 
at  least  as  much  in  the  facts  of  the  character,  the 
life,  death,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  in  His 
verbal   utterances ;    and   therefore  a  theology  which 
endeavours  to  be  complete  must  aim  at  discovering 
the  meaning  of  those  facts.     This  is  not  attempted 
in  the  Gospels,  which  simply  narrate  the  facts,  while 
Paulinism  explains  them,  and  traces  their  influence 
on    the    world.      Thus  it   is  necessarily   new   in   its 
expression  of    thought ;    and  yet   if   it   is  a   correct 
explanation  of  the  facts,  it  is  in  \ital  relation  to  the 
previous  work  of    Christ,  and  must   be  in  harmony 
with  it.     Seconel,   there  was  an  evielent  advance  in 
doctrine  corresponding  to  the   historical   progi'css  of 
events.     Not  only  had  the  course  of  the  life  of  Christ 
been  completed — which  was  not  the  case  during  the 
times  covered  by  the  Gosp.  1  narratives — but  wonder- 
ful, cpiite  unexpected  occurrences  in  the  mission-field 
and  in  the  life  of   the  Churches  had  furnished  new 
materials  for  reflection.     The  victory  of  Christianity 
in    heatlien    lands  had    opened  the   e^es  of    the  le.ss 


154  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

prejudiced  to  a  wider  view  of  its  range;  and  its 
spiritual  fruits  in  experience  had  enabled  some  to 
see  deeper  into  its  nature.  St.  Paul  was  the  leader 
in  this  progress  of  knowledge.  Third,  since  every 
mind  brings  to  the  contemplation  of  the  problems 
it  has  to  face  its  native  powers  and  its  previous 
acquirements,  and  since  St.  Paul's  was  a  mind  of 
superb  genius,  which  had  received  specific  intellectual 
training,  and — a  far  more  significant  fact — which 
had  been  through  the  school  of  a  rare  spiritual 
experience,  can  we  be  astonished  at  the  discovery 
that  his  own  rich  endowments  had  affected  his 
conception  of  Christianity?  Above  all,  St.  Paul  laid 
claim  to  a  specific  apostolic  mission,  with  a  gospel 
received  not  from  man,  but  direct  from  Christ,  and 
a  full  share  in  the  new  gifts  of  the  Spirit.  If  a 
great  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  Church, 
with  a  more  specific  illumination  for  the  Aj^ostles,  is 
to  be  accepted  as  a  central  fact  in  the  history  of  these 
times,  it  is  simply  unreasonable  to  expect  that  so 
potent  an  influence  should  not  have  left  its  stamp  in 
a  most  marked  degree  on  such  a  man  as  the  great 
Apostle  of  the  Gentiles. 

Therefore  we  must  be  prepared  to  meet  with 
novelty  of  thought.  Yet  this  need  not  involve  any 
contradiction  of  what  preceded ;  it  may  be  a  genuine, 
consistent  evolution  of  the  fruits  of  Christian  truth 
in  perfect  agreement  with  the  sj^ecific  nature  of  the 
seeds  sown  by  Jesus  Christ,  the  essential  thing  being 
that  the  vital  germ  comes  from  Christ,  while  later 
facts  and  experiences,  and  extraneous  knowledge  and 
thought,  only  furnish  it  with  nourishing  diet  and  the 


THE   ifEW  TESTAMENT  155 

discipline  of  culture.  Whether  this  is  the  case  or 
not  we  must  discover  by  a  careful  examination  of 
St.  Paul's  teaching. 

The  Apostle  only  alludes  to  his  early  experiences  as 
though  they  constituted  a  dark  background  against 
which  the  life  and  thought  that  followed  his  con- 
version stood  out  in  clear,  sharp  contrast ;  and  yet 
this  contrast  was  not  absolute,  for  long  after  the 
change,  which  he  felt  to  be  so  great  that  he  reckoned 
himself  a  new  man,  many  items  of  knowledge  and 
many  methods  of  reasoning,  carried  over  fiom  his 
previous  condition,  stood  him  in  stead  as  an  armoury 
of  weapons  for  his  Christian  warfare.  His  training 
was  exceptional  to  a  degree.  A  Hellenist  by  birth,  he 
was  a  Pharisee  by  education.  Critics  attempt  to  trace 
the  two  factors  that  thus  entered  into  the  making 
of  him  through  his  subsequent  career,  but  in  different 
proportions,  according  to  the  estimate  they  form  of 
his  teaching.  Thus  Pfleiderer  co-ordinates  them,  and 
while  admitting  the  Pharisaism  to  be  an  important 
element,  lays  greater  stress  on  the  Hellenism.  He 
does  not  hold,  indeed,  that  8t.  Paul  studied  Gieek 
philosophy  at  first  hand  ;  but  he  maintains  that  in  an 
indirect  way  the  Apostle  was  largely  influenced  by  it, 
especially  in  so  far  as  it  was  reflected  in  Alexandrian 
Hellenistic  Judaism,  and  he  gives  to  the  Book  of 
Wisdom  a  prominent  place  among  the  sources  of 
Pauline  theology.*  On  the  other  hand,  Sabatier  will 
allow  very  little  to  the  influence  of  Hellenism,  and 
regards  the  Pharisaism  of  Saul  of  Tarsus  as  the  one 
main  preliminary  to  the  life  and  thought  derived  from 
*    Uvchriiitctitlium,  p.  31. 


156  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

Christian  experience,*    Certainly  we  have  no  historical 
evidence  of  his  Hellenistic  training.     He  was  probably 
taken  to  Jerusalem  when  quite  a  boy ;  there  he  was 
brought  up  in  the  strictest  form  of  rabbinicalscholarship. 
He  himself  confesses  to  his  intense  Judaism,  to  his  fierce 
Pharisaism  (Gal.  i.  13,  14).  His  writings  reveal  the  fact 
that  he  was  quite  at  home  with  his  Hebrew  Bible,  from 
which,  when  necessary,  he  would  correct  the  Septua- 
gint  Version.    They  also  bear  witness  to  his  familiarity 
with   rabbinical  modes  of  thought.     The  allegorical 
treatment  of  Scripture  which  we  attribute  especially  to 
Alexandrian  Judaism,  but  which  was  also  in  practice 
at  Jerusalem,  was  handled  in  a  thoroughly  Jewish 
way  by  St.  Paul  (iv.  21-31).    A  deeper  characteristic  is 
to  be  discovered  in  the  dialectical  course  of  his  thought. 
St.  Paid  does  not  merely  exhort  and  expostulate  in 
the  practical  style  of   St.  James;   nor  does  he  only 
define  and  utter  pregnant  aphorisms  after  the  manner 
of  St.  John.     He  reasons,  he  meets  his  antagonist  as 
a  trained  logician ;  but  with  rabbinical,  not  Aristotelian 
or  Platonic  processes.     Still  more  vital  to  his  system 
is  his  legal  position.     Even  when  rejecting  the  law  he 
treats  it  from  a  lawyer's  point  of  view.     His  whole 
attitude  to  the  question  of  justification  is  forensic  ;  he 
has  the  proceedings  of  the  Sanhedrim  in  mind  when 
he  regards  the  salvation  of  a  soul  in  the  light  of  the 
acquittal  of  a  prisoner.     Then  there  is  no  evidence 
that  he  w^as  acquainted  with  Greek  culture.     The  two 
or  three  quotations  t  from  classical  literature,  which 

*  The  AjJostJe   Paul  (Eug.  Trans.),   pp.   45-56.      So  also 
Beyschlag,  Stevens,  etc. 

f  Acts  xvii.  28  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  33  ;  Titus  i.  12. 


THE  XEW  TESTAMENT  157 

are  all  that  the  most  diligent  search  has  been  able  to 
find,  might  have  been  picked  up  second-hand  in  the 
coiu'se  of  conversation,  or  from  casual  reading.  In 
fact,  St.  Paul  is  a  thorough  Jew  by  education,  as 
well  as  by  birth.  Still,  his  divergence  from  the  older 
Apostles  is  chiefly  seen  in  -his  more  liberal  treatment 
of  Gentiles  and  in  his  absolute  rejection  of  the  law  as 
a  means  of  salvation.  The  former  course  of  conduct 
may  have  been  due  in  some  measure  to  his  Hellenistic 
connections,  because,  although  he  was  brought  up  at 
Jerusalem,  naturally  he  would  have  maintained  some 
connection  with  his  kinsmen  in  Cilicia  ;  so  that  from 
the  fii'st  his  outlook  would  have  been  wider  than  that 
of  the  Galilean  Apostles.  The  latter — the  rejection  of 
the  law — was  no  doubt  partly  a  conclusion  drawn 
from  his  own  experience  in  the  failure  of  Pharisaism 
to  satisfy  his  conscience,  contrasted  with  the  trium- 
phant deliverance  he  had  received  through  the  grace  of 
God  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  partly  a  deduction  from  his 
observation  of  the  unfettered  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  bringing  forth  the  fruits  of  Christianity 
as  freel}'-  among  uncircumcised  Gentiles  as  among 
law-abiding  Jews. 

Scholars  of  the  most  opposite  schools — Pfleiderer, 
Lechler,  Sabatier,  Beyschlag,  etc. — have  concurred  in 
the  opinion  that  St.  Paul's  conversion  on  the  road  to 
Damascus  was  the  starting-point  of  his  most  char- 
acteristic Christian  thought.  No  doubt,  as  Weiss 
remarks,  "it  is  wrong  to  think  of  the  Apostle  Paul 
as  from  the  first  having  no  connection  with  the 
primitive  Christian  tradition."  *  It  is  not  unlikely 
*  Biblical  Theology,  etc.,  vol.  i.,  p.  279, 


158  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

that  he  had  been  one  of  the  Cilicians  with  whom  St. 
Stephen  disputed  (Acts  vi.  9),  and  it  is  just  possible 
that  he  had  seen  Jesus  in  the  flesh  (2  Cor.  v.  16). 
The  goads  against  which  it  was  "  hard  to  kick  "  may 
have  been  no  more  than  the  pressing  facts  of  the 
providential  history  of  the  Church  which  the  perse- 
cutor was  vainly  striving  to  oppose ;  but  it  is  not 
reasonable  to  deny  that  they  may  also  have  consisted 
in  the  urgent  thoughts  that  sprang  from  his  previous 
knowledge  of  Christianity.  The  restless  vehemence 
of  his  headlong  course  suggests  that  he  was  haunted 
by  a  suspicion  of  the  insecurity  of  his  whole  con- 
tention. While  witnessing  the  sublime  spectacle  of 
the  martyrdom  of  St.  Stephen,  so  real  a  man  as  Saul 
could  scarcely  have  escaped  the  question  whether  after 
all  the  faith  that  inspired  such  heroism  did  not  rest 
on  a  better  foundation  than  the  reckless  blasphemy 
which  was  its  basis  according  to  the  theory  of  the 
prosecution.  The  vision  on  the  road  to  Damascus 
may  have  been  the  Divine  answer  to  this  searching 
question.  Therein  the  startled  man  suddenly  learned 
by  his  own  experience  that  the  maligned  Htad  of  the 
persecuted  sect  was  alive  in  heavenly  majesty.  The 
result  of  this  amazing  revelation  was  a  violent  revo- 
lution of  thought  and  life  in  its  recipient,  who  saw  as 
by  a  flash  of  lightning  that  his  old  position  was 
hideously  wrong,  and  that  of  the  victims  of  Jewish 
bigotry  absolutely  right,  for  Jesus  was  indeed  the 
Christ  of  God  !  But  the  wonderful  experience  carried 
him  further.  Not  only  was  it  now  evident  that  he 
must  abandon  his  old  prejudices  and  accept  what 
hitherto  had  been  to  him,  as  it  continued  to  be  to  his 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  159 

compati'iots,  an  absurd  paradox — the  idea  of  a  Messiah 
who  liad  suffered  a  felon's  death  (1  Cor.  i.  23);  but  the 
very  fact  that  God  had  condescended  to  make  such 
a  revehition  to  so  obstinate  a  persecutor  of  the 
C'hristians  overwhelmed  him  with  a  feeling  of  the 
Divine  goodness  set  over  against  his  own  unworthi- 
ness.  Here  was  a  stupendous  act  of  grace,  the  efFtct 
of  which  was  to  crush  at  one  blow  and  for  ever  all 
the  Pharisaism  of  its  object.  Thus  was  he  brought 
to  recognise  not  only  that  the  righteousness  of  the 
h\w  after  which  he  had  been  striving  in  vain  was 
practically  unattainable, — this  he  had  learnt  long 
since,  to  his  perplexity  and  despair  (see  Kom.  vii. 
22-4), — but  that  it  was  not  what  God  recjuired ;  for 
had  there  not  come  to  him  in  his  sin,  quite  apart 
from  the  law,  a  rich  revelation  of  God's  Son,  all 
unmerited  on  his  part,  simply  sent  by  the  supreme 
love  of  God?  In  this  overwhelming  experience  of 
grace  we  may  detect  the  genesis  of  St.  Paul's  great 
fundamental  doctrine  of  grace. 

The  subsequent  teaching  of  St.  Paul  is  largely 
based  upon  his  own  experience.  We  may  discover 
in  it  two  distinct  courses  of  thought.  First,  there 
is  the  logical  and  more  external  presentation  of 
Christianity.  Naturally  this  is  most  prominent  in 
controversy,  where  we  see  St.  Paul  arguing  like  a 
rabbi,  although  he  is  opposing  the  rabbinical  tra- 
dition. In  this  region  he  regards  Christian  truth  in 
its  relation  to  law.  Here  his  analogies  and  illustra- 
tions are  drawn  from  the  courts,  and  his  keen,  strong 
argumentation  is  that  of  the  lawyer.  Second,  behind 
the  -logic,  furnishing  the  veiy  axioms  of  his  theology, 


160  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

and  repeatedly  coming  to  the  foreground  as  the  self- 
evident  data  of  all  his  teaching,  is  his  own  spiritual 
experience.  We  may  call  this  his  mysticism.  Scho- 
lasticism, both  Catholic  and  Protestant,  has  had  more 
sympathy  for  the  first  than  for  the  second  element  of 
St.  Paul's  theology ;  and  since  most  theologians  prove 
to  be  possessed  of  scholastic  sympathies,  great  injustice 
has  been  done  to  the  richest  contents  of  the  religions 
thought  of  St.  Paul.  But  when  we  pass  beyond  the 
ontworks  of  dialectics  to  this  inner  citadel,  we  reach 
what  is  the  true  secret  of  Paulinism.  This  is  not 
the  universalism  of  Christianity  seen  with  Hellenic 
breadth  of  vision  in  opposition  to  the  clannishness  of 
Judaism ;  nor  is  it  even  the  doctrine  of  righteousness 
by  grace  through  faith  in  opposition  to  righteousness 
by  law  and  works,  though  both  of  these  great  con- 
ceptions are  characteristically  Pauline :  it  is  the 
spiritual  truth,  tested  in  experience,  that  salvation 
is  received  and  perfected  by  the  nnion  of  the  soul 
with  Jesus  Chiist — crucified  with  Christ,  buried  with 
Christ,  risen  with  Christ,  ascending  with  Christ. 
Thus  Christ  Himself  is  the  very  heart  of  St.  Paul's 
religion.  The  early  apostolic  preaching  also  centres 
in  Christ;  but  it  treats  Him  more  externally — in 
relation  to  His  preordained  sufiering,  His  resur- 
rection triumph,  and  His  future  advent  in  glory. 
St.  James  echoes  the  very  words  of  Jesus;  but  he 
represents  the  spirit  of  the  ethical  Teacher,  of  the 
Preacher  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  St.  Peter 
comes  nearer  to  deeper  truths,  and  dwells  much  on 
the  sufferings  of  Christ  for  the  benefit  of  His  people, 
urging  Christians  to  walk  in  His  footsteps.     But  it 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  IGl 

is  St.  Paul  who  brings  out  most  clearly  and  forcibly 
the  great  fact  of  the  close  connection  of  the  Christian 
with  the  risen,  living  Christ.  This  is  one  reason  why 
the  resurrection  takes  a  regal  place  in  his  theology. 
It  not  only  demonstrates  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ; 
it  also  shows  that  our  Lord  now  lives,  and  lives  to 
be  the  life  of  His  Church.  Thus-  St.  Paul  sums  up 
his  conception  of  Christianity  in  his  own  experience 
when  he  says,  "To  me  to  live  is  Christ." 

A  careful  inquiry  bring.s  out  the  fact  that  St.  Paul's 
teaching  was  progressive,  and  so  leads  to  the  conclusion 
that  his  own  inspired  thinking  passed  through  stages 
of  development.  Many  writers,  none  more  skilfully 
than  Professor  Sabatier,  have  traced  these  stages  in 
correspondence  with  the  changes  in  the  experience 
of  the  Apostle.  They  naturally  fall  into  three 
periods : — 

First,  there  is  the  period  of  early  missionary  activity 
previous  to  the  breaking  out  of  the  great  controversy 
with  the  Judaisers,  which  is  represented  by  St.  Paul's 
speeches  in  Acts  and  the  two  Epistles  to  the 
Thessalonians.  It  is  characterised  by  plain  declara- 
tions of  elementary  truths  and  the  absence  of  subtle 
argumentation.  The  Apostle  announces  to  Jews  that 
Jesus  is  their  Messiah  (Acts  xiii.  23),  and  to  heathen 
that  God  has  appointed  a  Man  to  be  the  Judge  of  all 
(xvii.  31).  To  both  he  asserts  that  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus  is  the  confirmation  of  these  claims.  To  both 
he  offers  salvation  in  Christ.  The  return  of  the  risen 
Saviour  for  judgment  is  strongly  insisted  on.  When 
this  will  be  no  one  can  tell ;  but  the  Apostle  evidently 
shared   the  belief  of  his  contemporaries  in  the  near 

11 


162  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

approach  of  the  Parousia.  Indeed,  he  expected  it  to 
be  before  his  own  death  (1  Thess.  iv.  15).  We  need 
not  be  surprised  at  this,  for  had  not  even  our  Lord 
confessed  to  His  ignorance  of  the  time  of  His  own 
return  ?  If  we  may  beheve  that  Christ  did  come  in 
judgment  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the  Apostle 
was  not  far  out  in  his  anticipation.  Basing  their 
exhortation  on  the  approaching  doom,  these  missionary 
speeches  urge  men  to  repent,  and  promise  forgiveness 
to  those  who  Avill  accept  Jesus  Chi'ist  as  their  Lord 
and  Saviour. 

The  second  period  is  that  of  the  controversy  with 
Judaising  Christians.  It  is  represented  by  the 
principal  group  of  Epistles — those  addressed  to  the 
Corinthians,  the  Galatians,  and  the  Romans,  and 
containing  the  most  complete  exposition  of  St.  Paul's 
theology.  The  opposition  of  the  method  of  the  gospel 
to  that  of  the  law  is  now  clearly  drawn  out ;  God's 
supreme  act  of  love  in  sending  His  Son  to  redeem  the 
world  fully  expounded;  the  achievement  of  salvation 
through  the  death  of  Christ  as  a  rcconcihng  sacrifice 
strongly  insisted  on  ;  and,  finally,  the  appropriation  of 
the  grace  of  God  shown  to  take  place  by  means  of 
faith.  These,  however,  are  all  truths  difficult  of  appre- 
hension, and  in  writing  to  the  Corinthians  St.  Paul 
plainly  states  that  they  cannot  be  understood  until 
they  are  spiritually  discerned  (1  Cor.  ii.  13-15).  The 
Spirit  of  God  is  the  fountain  of  interior  illumination, 
from  which  also  Christians  derive  all  other  gifts 
and  graces  that  constitute  the  phenomenon  of  the 
new  life. 

The   third   period    embraces    the    Epistles  of   the 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  1G3 

Captivity,  ^vi'itten  in  a  calmer  mood,  after  the  great 
controversy  is  over — that  to  the  PhiUppians,  reveaUng 
the  Apostle's  deepest  perception  of  his  personal  relation 
to  his  Lord  ;  that  to  the  Ephesians,  developing  the 
idea  of  the  mystical  union  of  Christ  and  the  Church; 
and  that  to  the  Colossians,  advancing  to  an  exalted 
view  of  the  nature  of  Christ  and  His  supremacy 
over  the  universe  never  before  attained.  Lastly,  it 
may  be  noted  that  the  Pastoral  Epistles  manifest 
development  in  Church  government  rather  than  in 
theology. 

IL    SIN 

St.  Paul's  conception  of  redemption  in  Jesus  Chi-ist 
presupposes  the  prevalence  of  the  dreadful  evil  from 
which  deliverance  is  needed.  Therefore,  in  order  to 
comprehend  his  exposition  of  the  gospel,  we  must  first 
see  what  he  teaches  concerning  the  natiu-e  and  reign 
of  sin.  This  order  of  procedure  agrees  with  his  own 
method  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  wdiich  opens 
with  a  demonstration  of  the  world's  spiritual  ruin, 
and  that  in  turn  is  based  on  the  order  of  his  personal 
experience.  The  line  of  thought  is  bitten  deeply  into 
the  argument  by  the  force  of  the  Apostle's  earlier 
spiritual  history.  As  a  Pharisee  he  must  have  recog- 
nised that  the  aim  of  his  distinctive  position  was  to 
pursue  a  righteous  life  in  separation  from  the  evil  of 
the  world  ;  but  his  vivid  reminiscences  of  his  desperate 
struggle  for  purity  (recorded  in  Rom.  vii.)  show 
that  he  had  been  keenly  conscious  of  the  masterful 
dominion  of  sin  long  before  he  had  seen  Christ's  secrtt 


164  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

of  victory.  In  that  early  period  he  had  striven  to 
conquer  his  indwelhng  sin  hy  detailed  acts  of  obedience 
to  the  Jewish  law,  but  in  vain,  so  that  a  miserable 
sense  of  failure  had  intensified  his  perception  of  the 
overwhelming  magnitude  of  the  evil  he  was  contending 
against.  Thus,  although  he  had  always  aimed  at 
goodness  and  had  never  fallen  into  abandoned  pro- 
fligacy, St.  Paul,  like  St.  Augustine  and  John  Bunyan, 
was  brought  to  look  at  Christ  from  the  standpoint  of 
sin.  This  autobiographical  fact  lends  weight  to  the 
Apostle's  gloomy  representation  of  the  condition  of 
the  Christless  world. 

St.  Paul  insists  on  the  universal  dominion  of  sin 
over  both  Gentiles  and  Jews.  His  argument  is  two- 
fohl— empirical  and  Scriptural.  He  appeals  to  his 
readers'  knowledge  of  the  world — such  a  world  as 
was  gathered  in  that  sink  of  iniquity,  the  Eome  of 
tho  Caesars,  to  which  his  letter  w^as  going  !  and  he 
confirms  his  appeal  by  adding  quotations  from  denun- 
ciatory psalms.  It  might  be  objected  that  all  men 
were  not  guilty  of  the  heinous  vices  which  the  Apostle 
groups  together  in  his  awful  catalogue,  and  also  that 
the  language  of  ancient  Hebrew  poets  could  not  be 
fairly  adduced  as  evidence  against  the  character  of 
society  at  large  in  subsequent  ages.  But  it  should  be 
remembered  that  the  moral  atmosphere  in  which  such 
hideous  monstrosities  of  immorality,  as  the  Boman 
satyrists  plainly  show  were  existing  at  this  time,  could 
lift  up  their  heads  unabashed,  must  have  been  very 
foul;  and,  further,  it  should  be  observed  that  the 
Apostle  is  not  so  much  concerned  with  individual 
characters  as  with  mankind  as  a  whole.     The  language 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  165 

of  the  psalmi-sts  is  a  revelation  of  the  awful  depths  to 
which  human  nature  has  sunk.  Therefore,  while  it  is 
not  literally  true  of  all  men  that  "  the  poison  of  asps 
is  under  their  lips,"  or  that  "  their  feet  are  swift  to 
shed  blood,"  the  fact  that  such  things  can  be  said  of 
any  is  a  sign  of  the  degraded  condition  into  which 
mankind  has  fallen.  Other  pleas  which  might  be 
brought  forward  in  defence  of  the  accused  w^orld  are 
mtt  in  advance  by  the  Apostle  himself.  Thus  it 
might  be  maintained  that  the  Gentiles  have  not  the 
advantage  of  the  Jewish  law  to  guide  them.  St.  Paul's 
answer  is,  first,  that  they  are  not  ignorant  of  moral 
distinctions,  for  they  have  the  double  light  of  nature 
and  of  conscience ;  and  second,  that  they  will  only  be 
judged  according  to  their  light,  not  by  the  standard 
of  the  Jewish  law,  and  yet  that  this  light  will  suffice 
to  condemn  them.  Then,  anticipating  that  the  Jews 
would  claim  to  be  excused  on  account  of  their  privi- 
leges, St.  Paul  replies  that  those  very  privileges  will 
condemn  them,  because,  although  they  are  favoured 
with  special  religious  advantages,  they  do  the  same 
bad  things  that  they  condemn  in  the  Gentiles.  Else- 
where and  frequently  St.  Paul  dwells  emphatically  on 
the  lost  state  of  Jews  and  Gentiles  who  alike  are  dead 
in  trespasses  and  sins. 

Nevertheless,  St.  Paul  does  not  maintain  that  there 
is  nothing  but  evil  in  mankind  before  redemption. 
Conscience  is  not  ineffectual  among  the  heathen,  for 
there  are  Gentiles  who  "  do  by  nature  the  things  of 
the  law  "  (E,om.  ii.  14).  When  describing  his  own 
condition  before  Christ  was  revealed  to  him,  St.  Paul 
writes  of  his  hatred  of  sin,  his  wish  to  do  good,  his 


166  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

delight  in  the  law  of  God,  his  serving  the  law  of  God 
with  the  mind  while  with  the  flesh  he  served  the  law 
of  sin  (vii.  15-25).  Thus  he  teaches  the  universal 
prevalence  of  sin,  the  depth  and  intensity  of  the  guilt 
of  ir  ankind,  and  the  utter  inability  of  the  world  to 
save  itself — though  he  do(s  not  affirm  a  state  of 
absolute  corruption  without  any  admixture  of  good. 

The  miiversal  prevalence  of  so  fearful  an  evil 
naturally  prompts  the  question  of  its  origin,  and 
leads  us  to  ask  how  it  came  to  spread  its  dominion 
over  the  whole  world.  St.  Paul  does  not  answer 
these  questions  directly ;  since  his  purpose  is  wholly 
practical,  he  proceeds  at  once  to  point  to  the  remedy 
without  delaying  to  turn  aside  to  speculative  inquiries. 
Still,  indirectly  he  furnishes  us  with  two  explanations. 
The  first  is  historical.  The  universal  sin  of  the  race 
and  its  death  penalty  are  traced  back  to  the  trans- 
gression and  doom  of  the  first  man.  This  is  not  done  in 
connection  with  the  Apostle's  treatment  of  sin,  but 
only  allusivtly,  in  order  to  supply  an  analogy  to  the 
work  of  Christ,  who  also,  as  one  individual,  effects 
vast  change  s  in  the  whole  world.  Such  an  intro- 
duction of  a  subject,  which  is  never  considered  by 
the  Apostle  on  its  own  account,  should  make  us 
pause  before  we  peimit  his  words  to  bear  the 
enormous  weight  of  all  the  Augustinian  and  Calvin- 
istic  theology  that  has  been  built  upon  them.  We 
must  recollect  that  the  idea  of  the  relation  of 
Adam  and  his  sin  to  the  race  did  not  originate  with 
St.  Paul,  or  in  any  school  of  Christian  theology. 
Elsewhere,  when  establishing  his  own  specific  theses, 
the  Apostle  is  vehemently  argumentative.     Here  he 


THE  JSfEW  TESTAMENT  167 

does  not  think  of  proving  bis  assertion ;  neither  does 
he  proclaim  it  as  a  revelation,  as  pait  of  the 
"  mystery "  he  preached :  he  simply  appeals  to  it 
as  something  already  known  and  admitted  by  bis 
readers,  saying,  "^-Is  through  one  man  sin  entered  into 
the  world,  and  death  through  sin,"  etc.  (Rom.  v.  12). 
This  idea  was  a  tenet  of  Jewish  theology  recognised 
by  both  the  great  schools,  that  of  Alexandria  and 
that  of  Jerusalem,  as  a  legitimate  inference  from 
Gen.  iii.  It  is  found  in  the  Alexandrian  Book 
of  Wisdom,  where  we  read,  "Through  envy  of  the 
devil  came  death  into  the  world "  (ii.  24),  and  in 
Ecclesiasticus,  which  was  written  by  a  Jew  of 
Jerusalem,  in  which  we  read,  "  Of  the  woman  came 
the  beginning  of  sin,  and  through  her  we  all  die " 
(xxv.  24).  But  St.  Paul  holds  the  doctrine;  there- 
fore, although  he  received  it  in  his  rabbinical  training, 
his  retention  of  it  after  becoming  a  Christian  apostle 
requires  us  to  treat  it  as  a  part,  though  not  a 
prominent  part,  of  his  theology.  The  exact  idea  is 
that  death  passed  to  the  race  as  a  fatal  consequence 
of  the  sin  of  Adam — i.e.,  the  primary  thought  is  not 
hereditary  sin,  but  hereditary  fruits  of  sin.  Thus 
we  read,  "By  man  came  death.  .  .  .  As  in  Adam 
all  die''  (1  Cor.  x v.  21,  22).  At  the  same  time_,  the 
sin  of  Adam  is  attributed  to  the  race.  This  seems 
to  be  the  meaning  of  the  much- debated  clause  at  the 
end  of  Rom.  v.  12  :  "Therefore,  as  through  one  man 
sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  through  sin  ;  and 
so  death  passeth  unto  all  men, /b?'  that  all  sinned,''  etc. 
Although  we  may  agree  with  the  Revisers  in  retaining 
the  rendering  "for  that  "  for  the  Greek  words  e<^'  <3, 


168  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

a  rendering  for  which  the  usage  of  St.  Paul  elsewhere 
suggests  a  justification  (viz.,  in  2  Cor.  v.  4;  Phil.  iii.  12), 
in  preference  to  the  Vulgate  rendering  "  in  whom  " 
{in  quo),  so  that  the  phrase  means  "since  all  sinned," 
"  because  all  sinned/'  and  gives  the  reason  for  death 
coming  upon  all ;  still,  a  consideration  of  the  whole 
passage  shows  that  even  with  this  more  probable 
translation  the  words  cannot  point  to  the  sepai-ate, 
personal  sinning  of  individual  men.  The  Apostle 
cannot  mean  that  all  die  because  all  sin  in  their 
responsible,  private  lives.  To  insert  a  clause  to  that 
effect  would  be  to  shatter  his  whole  argument.  He 
is  drawing  an  analogy  between  the  influence  of 
Adam  upon  the  race,  and  the  corresponding  influence 
of  Christ.  His  point  is  that  just  as  from  the  one, 
Adam,  death  comes  to  all,  so  from  the  One,  Christ, 
life  comes  to  all.  But  if  all  die  on  account  of  the 
separate  sinning  of  each  individual,  the  analogy 
vanishes.  Then  it  is  not  the  fact  that  all  die  for 
their  own  personal  sins  :  this  cannot  be  aflirmed  of 
infants.  Further,  the  Aorist  ("all  si7ined,"  rjjxapTov) 
is  better  understood  of  a  single  act  than  of  the  con- 
tinuous stream  of  individual  misdeeds  which  reached 
down  to  the  time  of  the  Apostle.  For  these  reasons, 
even  though  we  should  accept  the  first  rendering  of 
the  clause,  we  must  still  understand  it  to  refer  to  the 
notion  that  when  Adam  sinned  all  his  descendants 
sinned  in  him ;  just  as  the  author  of  the  Ej^istle  to 
the  Hebrews  maintains  that  when  Abraham  paid 
tithes  to  Melchizedek,  Levi  did  so  (Heb.  vii.  9,  10). 
Elsewhere  St.  Paul  says,  "Through  the  one  man's 
disobedience   the    many   were    constituted    sinners " 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  169 

(Eom.  V.  19).  It  is  difficult  for  us  to  enter  into 
the  Apostle's  thought  ;  but  the  apparent  harshness 
of  his  teaching  will  be  mitigated  when  we  consider 
his  treatment  of  sin  itself.  He  writes  of  it,  in  the 
singular  number,  almost  personifying  it,  as  a  sort 
of  power  which  takes  possession  of  men  and  reigns 
over  them  (ver.  21).  In  modern  language  we  might 
say  that  it  was  a  virus,  a  disease  germ  in  the  soul. 
This  latent  sin  is  dormant  and  innocuous  until  it  is 
roused  to  activity  by  means  of  the  provocation  of  law 
(vii.  8,  9).  Now,  so  long  as  it  is  not  personally 
adopted  and  encouraged,  the  x4postle  does  not  charge 
it  with  guilt.  The  sin  which  lias  not  emerged  into  con-  \ 
scioiisness  under  the  influence  of  law  is  "  not  imputed  " 
(v.  13).  The  statement  of  this  significant  truth  comes 
immediately  after  the  assertion  that  all  sinned  in 
Adam,  and  is  evidently  intended  to  balance  that 
assertion.  Instead  of  saying  that  the  sin  of  Adam 
is  imputed  to  his  innocent  descandants,  St.  Paul  says 
the  exact  opposite :  they  are  not  innocent,  but  sin  is 
not  imputed  to  them — i.e.,  the  race  of  Adam  shares 
his  sin,  but  not  his  guilt.  Even  where  8t.  Paul  uses 
the  phrase  "  by  nature  children  of  wrath  "  (Eph.  ii.  3) 
he  does  not  predicate  innate  guilt,  because  the  word 
"  nature  "  (^uVts)  is  used  for  habit  or  custom,  as  well 
as  for  what  is  more  original  and  essential.  >St.  Paul's 
idea  of  human  solidarity  may  be  strange  to  our  views 
of  the  subject ;  but  the  modern  equivalent  lies  in  the 
doctrine  of  heredity,  which  teaches  that  vice  is  in- 
herited, and  that  children  are  not  to  be  blamed  for  the 
moral  taint  they  thus  receive  from  their  parents,  but 
only  for  their  conscious,  voluntary  acquiescence  in  it. 


170  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

These  considerations  bring  us  to  the  other  explana- 
tion of  sin  which  emerges  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul 
— the  ijsycliological.  The  seat  of  sin  is  the  flesh. 
Primarily,  the  flesh  is  the  substance  of  the  body. 
In  Pom.  viii.  13  the  terms  "flesh"  and  "body"  are 
used  synonymously.  Blood  relationship  is  "  according 
to  the  flesh  "  (i.  3) ;  a  bodily  trouble  is  a  "  thorn 
in  the  flesh "  (2  Cor.  xii.  7).  Accordingly  it  has 
been  maintained  by  Holsten,  and  less  absolutely  by 
Pfleiderer,  that  in  connecting  sin  with  the  flesh  St. 
Paul  is  adopting  the  Hellenic  idea  of  the  essential 
evil  of  matter,  and  teaching  that  sin  is  due  to  the 
influence  of  the  body  on  the  soul.  There  are  grave 
objections  to  this  view.  (1)  There  is  no  evidence  that 
St.  Paul  was  to  any  considerable  extent  under  the 
influence  of  Greek  thought.  His  whole  training  was 
Jewish  and  Palestinian.  But  this  doctrine  is  quite 
alien  to  Palestinian  Judaism.  (2)  He  does  not  teach 
that  the  flesh  is  evil.  Sin  dwells  in  the  flesh — quite 
another  thought.  St.  Paul  writes  about  cleansing  the 
flesh  (2  Cor.  vii.  1),  and  he  says  that  the  body  of  the 
Christian  is  a  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (1  Cor.  vi.  19). 

(3)  If  the  flesh  were  to  be  identified  with  sin,  if  matter 
were  to  be  considered  as  inherently  evil,  sin  would  be 
contemporaneous  with  creation.  This  St.  Paul  does 
not  hold;  on  the  contrary,  he  refers  to  sin  entering 
the  world  after   the  creation  of  man  (Pom.  v.   12). 

(4)  Sins  not  connected  with  the  body  are  described 
as  works  of  the  flesh — e.^.,  enmities,  strife,  jealousies, 
wraths,  factions,  divisions,  heresies,  envyings  (Gal. 
v.  19-23).  The  Corinthians  are  proved  to  be  carnal 
because  of  their  partisan  spirit  (1  Cor.  iii.  3).     Greek 


THE   XEW   TE.'STAMENT  171 

philosophy  was  not,  for  the  most  part,  of  any  "sensa- 
tional "  school,  yet  St.  Paul  calls  that  which  prevailtd 
at  Corinth  ''  fleshly  wisdom"  (2  Cor.  i.  12). 

For  these  reasons  it  has  been  common  to  under- 
stand the  '"flesh"  of  St.  Paul's  writings  as  a  word 
signifying  man,  the  whole  man,  body  and  soul, 
especially  when  viewed  in  his  frailty  and  imperfection 
and  contrasted  with  God — a  familiar  Old  Testament 
usage.  This  opinion  is  fully  expounded  by  Professor 
Dickson  in  his  Baird  Lectures,  on  the  basis  of  argu- 
ments suggested  by  Wendt.  But  although  no  doubt 
St.  Paul  does  sometimes  employ  the  Hebrew  idiom 
(«?.^.,  Rom.  iii.  20),  the  appeal  to  it  as  an  adequate  basis 
for  explaining  the  Apostle's  doctrine  of  the  relation  of 
sin  to  the  flesh  is  beset  with  difliculties.  The  notions 
of  separation  from  God  and  antagonism  to  God  are 
not  found  in  the  ancient  usage  of  the  word  "  flesh," 
according  to  which  man  is  only  contrasted  with  God 
on  account  of  his  feebleness,  his  frailty.  The  evil 
associations  of  the  word  "  carnal "  do  not  spring 
from  the  simple,  pathetic  Hebrew  idea.  Moreover, 
the  metaphor  does  not  readily  lend  itself  to  St.  Paul's 
abstract  thought.  In  the  Old  Testament  the  word 
"  flesh  "  is  used  concretely  for  mankind.  We  find 
no  precedent  there  for  the  notion  of  '*  the  flesh  "  as 
an  abstract  idea  of  humanity.  Still  less  can  the 
adjective  "  carnal  "  come  from  the  older  usage.  We 
speak  of  "somebody,"  and  we  count  "heads.'"  But 
we  cannot  therefore  make  the  words  "  bodily "  or 
"heady"  equivalent  to  "human."  Then,  often 
"  flesh  "  with  St.  Paul  does  not  stand  for  the  whole 
U]an.      The    Spirit    is   set    over    against    the   flesh. 


172  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

Professor  Dickson  understands  this  of  the  Spirit  of 
God,  or  the  power  and  energy  of  God  working  in 
man  ;  so  that  the  contest  between  Spirit  and  flesh  is 
that  between  God  and  God-given  influences  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  whole  man  in  his  natural  state  on 
the  other.  No  doubt  St.  Paul  usually  associates  the 
thought  of  the  Divine  Spirit  and  His  influence  with 
the  notion  of  the  spiritual  in  human  nature.  Still, 
he  also  holds  that  man  has  a  spiritual  nature,  and  he 
refers  to  his  own  personal  spirit.  Thus,  in  1  Cor.  v.  3, 
St.  Paul  writes  of  being  "  absent  in  the  body,  but 
present  in  the  spirit  "  ;  and,  as  an  equivalent  expres- 
sion, he  writes  in  Col.  ii.  5,  "  Though  I  am  absent  in 
the  flesh,  yet  am  I  with  you  in  the  spirit,"  plainly 
meiining  his  own  human  spirit.  Similarly  he  writes, 
"  I  myself  with  the  mind  serve  the  law  of  God,  but 
with  the  flesh  the  law  of  sin  "  (Eom.  vii.  25).  Here 
again  the  mind  (i/ovs)  is  contrasted  with  the  flesh  as 
a  part  of  the  Apostle's  natural  being,  showing  that 
the  flesh  does  not  include  the  whole  man. 

We  are  driven  back,  then,  to  something  ai)proach- 
ing  the  primary  meaning  of  the  word  "  flesh."  Yet, 
as  we  have  seen,  this  cannot  be  accepted  in  strict 
literalness.  It  seems  that  we  must  find  a  solution  of 
the  riddle,  as  Beyschlag  has  indicated,  by  starting 
with  the  physical  meaning  of  the  word  "  flesh,"  but 
enlarging  its  content.  Thus  primarily  sin  has  its 
seat  in  the  body.  St.  Paul  writes  of  the  law  of  sin 
in  his  "  members,"  and  he  cries,  "  Who  shall  deliver 
me  out  of  the  body  of  this  death  ? "  (ver.  24). 
Here  sin  is  closely  associated  with  the  animal 
organism.     Further,  whenever  it  is  called  '^  carnal "  it 


THE   XEW   TESTAMENT  173 

is  still  in  some  way  connected  witli  onr  l(nver  nature. 
Thus  St.  Paul;  when  writing  of  indwelling  sin,  inserts 
the  explanatory  clause  "  in  my  flesh,"  saying,  "  I  know 
that  in  me,  that  is,  in  my  flesh,  dwelleth  no  good 
thing"  (ver.  18).  There  would  be  no  meaning  in 
that  insertion  if  the  self  were  alw^ays  identical  with 
the  flesh.  He  must  mean  that  sin  dwells  in  him 
during  his  unregenerate  state — and  it  is  this  state 
he  is  writing  of — by  reason  of  the  self  being  then 
practically  identical  with  the  lower  nature.  As  the 
domain  of  the  flesh  enlarges,  it  comes  to  cover  the 
sensuous  as  well  as  the  sensual,  and  then  the  worldly, 
since  the  world  touches  us  through  the  senses  and 
incessantly  appeals  to  our  low^er  nature.  Thus  even 
philosophy  can  become  carnal  by  failing  to  take 
notice  of  the  higher  spiritual  life  and  truth. 

St.  Paul  never  accounts  for  these  facts,  never 
brings  his  two  descriptions  of  sin  together,  never 
connects  the  evil  in  the  flesh  w^ith  the  fall  of  Adam. 
Each  thought  is  treated  by  itself.  Yet  there  is  no 
inconsistency  between  them.  Moreover,  St.  Paul's 
description  of  the  genesis  of  personal  sin  neither  goes 
back  to  Adam  nor  rests  in  the  doctrine  of  the  flesh. 
He  evidently  cUstinguishes  the  sin  of  conscious  guilt 
from  the  great  abstraction  "  Sin,"  w^hich  he  elsewdiere 
almost  personifies,  and  treats  as  a  potentate  ruling 
over  mankind.  Conscious,  personal  sin,  while  it 
dwells  in  the  flesh,  is  not  a  natural  product  of  the 
lower  life ;  it  consists  in  positive  enmity  to  God. 
Even  in  its  sensual  forms  it  does  not  spring  only 
from  bodily  lusts.  Here  St.  Paul  is  more  profound 
than    St.    James,    penetrating    beneath    the    carnal 


174  THE   THEOLOGY   OF 

desires  to  the  spiritual  apostasy  which  gives  the 
reins  to  them  (i.  18-25).  In  a  subtle  analysis  he 
traces  the  sin  of  men  back  to  their  wilful  neglect  of 
God  in  nature  and  conscience,  and  the  consequent 
degradation  of  religion.  Through  abandoning  the 
uplifting  and  preserving  influences  of  spiritual  religion 
they  not  only  fall  into  idolatry,  they  also  sink  down 
to  immorality.  This  is  a  vital  consideration  ;  for  the 
remedy  must  be  as  deep  as  the  disease.  Inasmuch  as 
sin  is  more  than  moral  corruption,  its  cure  must  be 
moi-e  than  ethical  reformation.  Since  sin  consists 
essentially  in  apostasy  from  God,  redemption  must 
be  nothing  less  than  a  reconciliation  issuing  in  a 
restoration  of  communion  with  God. 
/^  Finally,  it  is  to  be  observed  that,  while  St.  Paul 
frequently  alludes  to  Satan,  he  never  does  so  in 
connection  with  the  genesis  of  sin.  The  devil  is  a 
malignant  author  of  physical  evil,  disease,  and  death ; 
but  he  is  overruled  by  Providence,  and  utilised  as 
an  instrument  foi-  just  and  wholesome  chastisement 
{e.g.,  1  Cor.  v.  5 ;  2  Cor  xii.  7).  He  is  also  a  domi- 
nant spiritual  power,  "  the  god  of  this  age,"  who  has 
blinded  the  minds  of  the  unbelieving  (2  Cor.  iv.  4), 
'-the  prince  of  the  power  of  tlie  air,  the  spirit  that 
now  worketh  in  the  sons  of  disobedience  "  (Eph.  ii.  2)  ; 
but  Adam  and  the  flesh  are  more  closely  associated 
with  sin  than  is  Satan,  because  the  latter  is  regarded 
as  a  somewhat  remote,  foreign  potentate,  while  the 
sources  of  sin  lie  nearer  home.  The  guilt  of  sin 
cannot  be  thrown  back  from  man  to  the  devil,  because 
the  action  of  the  latter  is  conditioned  by  the  char- 
acters and  wills  of  his  subjects.     Thus  he  blinds  the 


77//;  .y/;ir  tkstament  175 

minds  of  luihelierers,  ami  works  in  the  sons  of  dis- 
obedience. The  lack  of  faith  and  obedience  on  the 
part  of  men  precedes  the  exercise  of  the  spiritual 
power  of  Satan,  and  supplies  the  point  of  attach- 
ment without  which  he  could  not  lay  hold  of  his 
victims. 

III.    JESUS   CHRIST 

Jesus  Christ,  the  personal,  living  Kedeemer  and 
Lord,  was  the  centre  of  St.  Paul's  religious  life 
and  thouglit,  and  the  inspiring  subject  of  all  his 
preaching.  In  the  first  place  he  taught  that  Jesus 
was  the  Christ,  that  the  hopes  of  the  fathers  and 
promises  of  the  prophets  came  to  a  focus  and  found 
their  fulfilment  in  the  Man  of  Nazareth,  who  had 
been  crucified  in  shame,  but  who  had  been  raised 
by  God  in  glory.  To  the  world  at  large,  where 
Jewish  anticipations  were  unknown,  St.  Paul  had 
to  explain  the  ideas  as  well  as  the  realisation  of 
them.  So  he  preached,  as  his  accusers  said,  "another 
King,  one  Jesus  "  (Acts  xvii.  7).  For  himself  Jesus 
Christ  was  emphatically  "  the  Lord,"  before  whom 
he  stood  as  a  humble  "  bondservant  "  (8ovAos).  The 
glow  of  passionate  love,  the  awe  of  reverence,  the 
confession  of  total  surrender  and  absolute  obedience 
which  mark  the  Apostle's  regard  for  his  Lord  testify 
to  the  highest  appreciation  even  apart  from  any 
theory  of  the  nature  of  theii-  object.  He  must  be 
supremely  good  and  great  w^ho  could  command  such 
adoring  affection.  But  we  may  go  further.  Although 
the   Apostle   never   attempts   to   give   us   an    exact 


176  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

account  of  his  ideas  of  Christ  in  one  complete  picture, 
we  may  gather  from  his  many  scattered  statements 
the  several  traits  of  a  fairly  definite  portrait. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  St.  Paul  believed  in 
the  true  humanity  of  our  Lord.  He  despised  know- 
ledge of  Christ  after  the  flesh  compared  with  the 
spiritual  knowledge  revealed  to  those  who  have 
inward  experience  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ ;  but  this 
very  contempt  for  the  barely  external  implies  that 
Jesus  did  live  as  a  man  in  the  common  earthly  life. 
He  "  was  born  of  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the 
flesh "  (Rom.  i.  3).  He  was  '^  born  of  a  woman " 
(Gal.  iv.  4).  St.  Paul  makes  no  reference  to  the 
miraculous  form  of  the  birth  of  Christ.  He  may  not 
have  heard  of  it.  But  he  says  nothing  to  conflict 
with  it.  There  is  no  reason  to  think  that  his  allusion 
to  the  seed  of  David  points  to  Joseph,  whose  genea- 
logies in  the  line  of  David  are  given  in  two  Gospels, 
for  he  may  have  been  aware  that  Mary  was  of  the 
same  line.  His  silence  on  this  subject  cannot  be  used 
as  an  argument  as  to  the  historical  facts  of  the  case 
either  way,  because  we  have  no  ground  for  saying 
that  he  must  have  known  what  had  happened,  or 
that  if  he  had  known  it  he  was  under  any  necessity 
to  write  about  it.  The  neglect  of  this  point,  however, 
suggests  that  St.  Paul  rested  his  belief  in  the  Divinity 
of  Christ  on  considerations  that  were  quite  inde- 
pendent of  the  physical  mode  of  His  birth. 

St.  Paul  teaches  the  personal  sinlessness  of  Christ. 
He  writes  of  "  God  sending  His  Own  Son  in  the  likeness 
of  sinful  flesh"  (Rom.  viii.  3);  a  phrase  which,  taken  by 
itself,  might  point  to  phantasmal  Docetism — -the  idea 


THE  XEW  TESTAMENT  177 

th.it  Christ  had  not  a  real  body  of  flesh,  had  only 
the  appearance  of  such  a  body  :  but  this  interpreta- 
tion is  quite  excluded  by  those  other  passages  just 
quoted  which  make  mention  of  the  actual  corporeal 
nature  of  our  Lord.  It  is  evident  that  the  careful 
language  of  the  Apostle  is  designed  to  exclude  the 
tliought  of  any  sin  attaching  to  the  human  nature 
of  Christ.  He  had  flesh,  as  we  learn  elsewhere, 
but  not  sinful  flesh.  The  moral  birth-taint  of 
hereditary  corruption  which  the  Apostle  calLs  "  sin," 
although  it  does  not  include  guilt  until  the  will  has 
consented  to  it,  was  not  found  in  Christ.  He  was  born 
as  an  unf alien  man.  Neither  did  He  commit  sin 
in  His  conscious,  voluntary  actions,  for  He  "  knew 
no  sin"  (2  Cor.  v.  21).  It  is  commonly  said  that 
St.  Paul  based  this  doctrine  on  his  exalted  conception 
of  the  glorious  Christ  whom  he  knew  after  the 
resurrection  by  spiritual  exj^erience.  This  may  w^ell 
be  the  case.  Such  a  Christ  as  St.  Paul  knew  coidd 
not  have  been  a  sinner  on  earth.  Yet  why  should 
we  exclude  am*  reference  to  the  earthly  history  ? 
St.  Paul  had  held  conversations  with  the  companions 
of  our  Lord  ;  and  although  he  did  not  derive  the  great 
principles  of  his  gospel  from  these  men,  he  must  have 
been  eager  to  leai-n  from  them  details  of  the  life  of 
Jesus.  He  always  quoted  traditional  saymgs  of  Christ 
with  the  greatest  reverence,  and  appealed  to  them  as 
a  final  authority  distinctly  higher  than  that  of  his 
own  inspired  teaching  {e.g.,  1  Cor.  vii.  10,  12). 
Therefore  we  may  assume  that  he  knew  how  they 
who  had  watched  their  Lord  most  closely  were  con- 
vinced of  His  sinlessness. 

12 


v( 


178  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 


A  doctrine  peculiar  to  St.  Paul  among  New 
Testament  writers  is  that  of  the  Second  Adam. 
The  Apostle  would  have  found  seed  thoughts  in  Jewish 
s]3eculations  concerning  the  Messiah,  but  he  alone  has 
worked  out  the  conception  in  its  direct  application 
to  Jesus  Christ,  and  shown  that  our  Lord  is  the 
Founder  of  a  new  order  of  humanity — the  firstborn 
among  many  brethren  (Rom.  viii.  29).  Weighty 
inferences  may  be  drawn  from  this  idea.  Thus 
Christ  is  seen  to  be  identified  with  mankind  in  its  per- 
fection and  glory.  Then  the  aim  of  His  work  must 
have  been  to  effect  more  than  a  restoration  of  what 
Adam  had  ruined  ;  it  was  also  to  carry  on  the  progress 
of  man  beyond  redemption  up  to  perfection ;  from 
which  it  has  been  argued  that  according  to  St.  Paul's 
teaching  Christ  would  have  come,  the  incarnation 
would  have  taken  place,  even  if  there  had  been  no 
sin  and  fall  of  man.  God's  idea  of  man  is  only 
fully  realised  in  Christ  as  in  the  firstfruits,  and 
through  Christ  in  His  followers.  Lastly,  Christ 
must  be  of  a  most  exalted  nature  in  order  to  be 
the  Founder  and  Leader  of  the  new  humanity. 
Although  absolute  Divinity  may  not  be  involved 
in  the  notion  of  the  Second  Adam,  we  are  pi'epared 
by  that  notion  for  the  perception  of  the  higher 
truth.  Here  is  no  approach  to  the  Ariaii  doctrine 
of  an  intermediate  creature,  neither  truly  God  nor 
truly  man.  It  is  rather  a  preparation  for  the 
thought  of  the  closer  union  of  God  and  man 
through  the  lifting  of  man  nearer  to  God. 

St.  Paul  certainly  believed  in  the  Divinity  of  Jesus 
Christ,   and  taught  it  to   his  converts.     He  felt  no 


TIIK   XEW   TESTAMENT  179 

compunction  in  applying  to  our  Lord  pln-ases  which 
the  Old  Testament  plainly  used  for  Jehovah  (e.^., 
Rom.  X.  12-14).  This  is  in  agreement  with  the 
custom  of  other  Apostles.  Although  the  practice 
does  not  include  a  direct  affirmation  of  Divinity,  it  is 
inconceivable  that  any  amount  of  negligence  could 
have  permitted  it  to  creep  in  if  Jesus  had  been  held 
to  be  only  a  man.  But  the  Apostle  is  much  more 
explicit.  He  refers  to  our  Lord  as  the  Son  of  God 
{e.g.,  Gal.  i.  16),  and  as  God's  oimi  Son  {tov  kavrov  vlov, 
Eom.  viii.  3 ;  tov  IBlov  vlov,  ver.  32).  These  exact 
expressions  exclude  the  notion  that  the  title  is  used 
only  in  the  theocratic  sense  in  which,  perhaps,  the 
Jews  attributed  it  to  the  Messiah,  mthont  any 
assertion  of  personal  Divinity.  They  plainly  point 
to  a  real  Sonship  belonging  to  our  Lord  essentially 
and  by  nature.  In  Rom.  i.  4  St.  Paul  says  that 
He  w^as  "  declared  (or  determined,  opicr^eVro?)  to 
be  the  Son  of  God  with  power,  accorduig  to  the 
Spirit  of  holmess,  by  the  resurrection  of  the  dead." 
From  this  passage  some  have  inferred  that  St.  Paul 
taught  that  our  Lord  did  not  attain  to  Divine  Sonship 
till  after  the  resurrection.  But  we  must  interpret 
the  words  in  harmony  with  what  the  Apostle  writes 
elsewhere.  Thus  he  tells  us  that  God  sent  His  Son 
(Rom.  viii.  3  ;  Gal.  iv.  4),  an  expression  which,  apart 
from  its  probable  reference  to  pre-existence,  certainly 
implies  that  when  Jesus  came  into  the  world  He  was 
God's  Son,  and  therefore  that  He  could  not  have  waited 
until  the  end  of  His  earthly  life  for  the  realisation  of 
His  Sonship.  The  resuriection  simply  defined  the  Son- 
ship,  made  it  clear,  and  made  God's  recognition  of  it 


180  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

clear  too.     In  this  passage  the  "  Spirit  of  holiness  " 
corresponds  to  the  "  flesh  "  of  the  previous  verse.     To- 
gether they  make  up  the  complete  being  of  Christ. 
Thus  the  "  Spirit  of  holiness  "  is  the  Divine  in  Christ, 
which  is  one  side  of  His  nature  as  Son  of  God,  over 
against  the  flesh  of  the  seed  of  David,  the  other  side 
of   His  nature  as  man.     There  is  just  one  passage  in 
which,  if  the  text  is  correct — and  there  are  no  manu- 
script discrepancies — and  if  we  may  follow  the  most 
natural  rendering,   St,  Paul  departs  from  his  usual 
practice  in  calling  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  and  names 
Him  directly  "  God,"  with  the  most  exalted  attributes 
— viz.,  Rom.  ix.  5  :  "of  whom  {i.e.,  the  Jews)  is  Christ 
as  concerning  the  flesh,  who  is  over  all  God  blessed 
for  ever.     Amen."     The  fact  that  this  expression  is 
without  parallel  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul  has  led 
some  to  translate  the  woixls  in  a  less  obvious  and 
natural  way,  by  making  the  sentence  end  at  "flesh," 
and  taking  the  last  words  as  a  separate  doxology — 
"  He  who  is  God  over  all  be  blessed  for  ever."     But 
the   insertion    of   a    doxology   in    the    middle   of   an 
argument  would  be  strangely  abrupt.     Elsewhere  the 
Apostle  ascribes  very  exalted  attributes  to  our  Lord. 
He  is  the  Mediator  of  creation — "  through  whom  are 
all  things  "  (1  Cor.  viii.  6) ;  of  old  He  existed  in  the 
essential  form    of  God   (eV  fJiopcf>f}  &eov,  Phil.    ii.    6); 
He  is  the  "  image  of  God  "  (2  Cor.  iv.  4),  so  that  we 
know  God  by  knowing  Christ. 

The  pre -existence  of  Christ  is  distinctly  asserted 
in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul.  We  cannot  certainly 
infer  it  from  the  assertion  that  God  sent  His  Son. 
But  other  phrases  clearly  point  to  this  idea.     Thus  in 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  181 

2  Cor.  viii.  9  we  read,  "  Though  He  was  rich,  yet  for 
your  sakes  He  became  poor."     The  example  of  Christ 
is  here  cited  as  a  stimulus  to  the  Corinthians.     But 
]jow  could  it  be  so  applied  if  the  Apostle  could  go 
back  no  further  than  the  earthly  life  of  our  Lord 
in   the    carpenter's  home  at   Nazareth  ?     Still  more 
distinct  is  the  famous  passage  Phil.  ii.  5-11,  on  which 
the  kenotic  theories  are  chiefly  based.     The  Apostle 
opens  by  describing  our  Lord  as  first  "being  in  the 
form    of   God,"    and   then,    instead    of    grasping    at 
equality  with  His  Father,  taking  the  very  opposite 
course.     He   "  emptied  Himself,  taking  the  form  of 
a  servant,  being  made  in  the  likeness  of  men,"  etc. 
Strangely    enough,    some    have     assigned     all    this 
luimiliation    to    the    lowly   conduct    of   our   Lord  on 
earth.     But  the  reference  to  the  Divine  glory  and 
the  self-emptying  precedes  any  mention  of  the  earthly 
life.     He  emptied  Himself  first ;   then,   as   a   result 
of   this   action,    He   appeared   on  earth.     Moreover, 
His    humiliation   began  in  His   being  made    in   the 
likeness  of  men.     What  does  this  mean  but  the  very 
inception  of    the   incarnation?      Again,  it   must  be 
clear  that  the  previous  state  was  one  of  great  fulness 
and  glory.    Christ  did  more  than  lay  aside  His  glory  ; 
He  gave  up  powers  and  attributes,  and  came  down 
to  the  limitations  of  human  consciousness.     He  not 
only  threw  off  robes  of  majesty.  He  emptied  lliniself. 
Such  words  must  denote   what   is  personal  and   in- 
ternal.    For  His  wonderful  act  of  grace  culminating 
in  submission  to  death  Christ  has  given  to  Him  the 
highest  name   of    honour.      Since  this  experience   of 
our    Lord's   is   not  a  mere  resumption  of  a   former 


182  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

state,  but  a  direct  reward  from  God,  it  would 
seem  to  point  to  a  higher  exaltation  than  that 
of  the  first  condition.  But  we  must  not  press  the 
inference.  St.  Paul  contemplates  the  final  exaltation 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  earthly  life,  not  from  that 
of  the  pre -existence.  Viewed  thence  it  appears  as 
a  glorious  recompense. 

At  the  same  time,  this  ascription  of  greatness 
to  our  Lord  goes  along  with  a  certain  idea  of  subordi- 
nation. It  is  not  the  Arian  subordination  of  the 
creature  who  has  a  beginning  in  time.  Christ  is  the 
Son,  not  a  creature  ;  and  there  is  no  reference  to  any 
beginning  of  His  pre-existence — a  strange  idea  which 
never  seems  to  have  been  thought  of  by  the  Apostle. 
Certainly  the  drift  of  his  teaching  is  against  it.  Still, 
Christ  is  in  a  degree  subject  to  His  Father.  God 
sent  His  Son,  and  the  Sender  must  be  superior  to 
the  Sent.  Christ  did  not  treat  equality  with  God  as 
a  thing  He  would  grasp  at  (Phil.  ii.  6).  He  did  not 
rise  from  the  dead  in  His  own  strength.  Describing 
the  resurrection,  St.  Paul  uses  the  passive  voice, 
"He  hath  been  raised"  (L  Cor.  xv.  12),  or  he  says 
God  "raised"  Him  up  (y^yetpe,  ver.  15).  Similarly, 
it  is  God  who  exalts  Him.  All  things  come  only 
through  (Sttt)  Christ  as  the  Mediator  ;  but  they  come 
originally  out  of  (eV)  God  as  the  First  Cause.  In  the 
great  future  triumph,  "  when  all  things  have  been 
subjected  unto  Him,  then  shall  the  Son  also  Himself 
be  subjected  to  Him  that  did  subject  all  things  unto 
Him,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all "  (1  Cor.  xv.  28). 
It  is  not  possible  to  limit  these  w^ords  to  the  human 
nature  of  Christ,  because  the  title  "  the  Son,"  not 


THE   XEW  TESTAMENT  183 

"  Jesus,"  is  used,  and  this  always  points  to  the  Divine 
in  Christ.  Moreover,  St.  Paul  never  distinguishes  be- 
tween the  human  and  the  Divine  in  our  Lord  in  such 
a  way  that  anything  like  personality  could  be  ascribed 
to  the  former  exclusively.  He  thinks  of  one  person 
throughout  as  the  Son  of  God,  who  was  "formed  in 
fashion  as  a  man,"  and  afterwards  exalted  to  the 
highest  glory. 

We  must  turn  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  for 
tlie  completion  of  St.  Paul's  Christology.  In  this  late 
work  we  find  that  the  Apostle  has  advanced  to  more 
exalted  ideas  of  the  nature  and  functions  of  Christ 
than  he  had  set  forth  in  any  previous  epistle.  All  the 
writings  of  the  Captivity  enrich  our  conceptions  of 
the  greatness  of  our  Lord.  As  we  have  seen  already, 
the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  most  distinctly  accen- 
tuates the  glory  of  the  pre-existence  and  the  grace 
of  the  incarnation,  followed  by  the  resultant  and  final 
exaltation.  The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  sets  Ijefore 
us  a  picture  of  Christ  wedded  to  His  Church,  and  in 
another  image,  Christ  the  Head  of  the  body.  But  in 
the  EpL>^tle  to  the  Colossians  we  see  the  relation  of  our 
Lord  to  the  whole  universe.  He  is  '•  the  image  of 
the  invisible  God,  the  firstborn  of  all  creation ' 
(Col.  i.  15).  The  latter  phrase  does  not  afiirm  that 
He  is  a  part  of  creation.  The  universe  is  created ; 
Christ  is  begotten.  The  title  "  firstborn  "  does  not 
imply  that  creation  was  also  begotten,  for  it  is  used 
as  a  name  of  honour  for  the  heir.  It  suggests  priority 
of  origin  and  primacy  of  rank.  This  is  clear,  because 
in  the  next  clause  we  read,  "  For  in  HinYh  were  all 
things  created "  (ver.  IG),    sliowing   that    He   stands 


184  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

above  creation,  which  only  comes  into  being  through 
His  mediation.     In  opposition  to  an  incipient  Jewish 
Gnosticism,  which  distributed  the  operations  of  God 
through  a  whole  hierarchy  of  angels,  St.  Paul  affirms 
that  these  beings,   thrones,   dominions,  piincipalities 
— presuming   they  exist — were   all   created    through 
Him  and   unto  Him.     Here    He  is  more  than   the 
Mediator  of   creation,  as   He   appears   to   be   in  an 
earlier  expression  (1  Cor.  viii.  6).     He  is  its  end  ;  all 
things  lead  up  to  Him ;  all  were  created  unto  Him. 
This  is  a  new  thought.     It  marks  a  distinct  advance. 
It  would  be  a  mistake,  an  absurd  anachronism,  to 
attempt  to  arrange  these  ideas  as  parts  of  a  systematic 
scheme  of  the  Trinity.     8t.  Paul  never  speculates  on 
the  essential  inner  life  of  God  apart  from  His  relation 
to  the  universe.     He  follows  our  Lord's  example  in 
frequently  describing  God  as  the  Father.     He  writes 
of  "  God  "  (the   Father)  absolutely.     Jesus  Christ  is 
the  Son  of  God.     St.  Paul   does  not  hesitate  to  call 
the  Holy  Ghost  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  without  making 
any  attempt  to  guard  the  barriers  of  separate  joerson- 
ality  {e.g.,  Eom.  viii.  9).    Nevertheless,  the  Spirit  is  not 
impersonal,  for  the  Apostle  mentions  His  action  and 
even  His  will  (1   Cor.  xii.   11).     His  full  Divinity  is 
clearly  taught,  for  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
treated  as  identical  with  the  indwelling  of  God  (iii.  16  ; 
2  Cor.  vi.  16).     But  though  the  Apostle  attempts  no 
metaphysical  synthesis  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  he 
certainly  affirms  the  fundamental  Trinitarian  ideas. 
Thus,  for  example,  in  the  benediction  he  directly  in- 
dicates both  the  Divinity  and  the  threefold  existence 
of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  (xiii.  14). 


THE   XEW  TESTAMEyr  185 


IV.    REDEMPTION 

The  great  joy  and  confidence  of  St.   Paul  in  the 
proclamation  of  his  gospel  spring  out  of  the  assurance 
that  the  deliverance  of  men  from  the  ruin  of  sin,  as 
well  as  the  further  advance  of  the  sons  of  God  on  to 
perfection,   are  efiected  by  God  Himself,  -who  of  His 
own   will  accomplishes  these  results.     God  sent  His 
son.     Salvation  is  a  gift  {Soiped),  by  means  of  which 
sinners  are  justified  gratuitously  (Swpcav),   a  favour 
(xapLafxa)  originating  in  the  pure  kindness  (xapt?)  of 
(U)(\.     This  doctrine  of  free  grace  lies  at  the  root  of 
tlie  Apostle's  teaching.     On  the  one  hand,  it  reproves 
tlie  folly  of  attempts  at  self-salvation  by  showing  that 
they  areas  needless  as  they  are  hopeless — that  we  can- 
not save  ourselves,  and  that  we  are  not  required  to 
produce,  purchase,  or  deserve  our  own  salvation.     On 
the  other  hand,  it  manifests  the  merciful  disposition  of 
God,  who  has  not  to  be  propitiated — in  the  heathen 
sense  of  the  word,  i.e.,  induced  to  become  gracious — 
because  from  the  first  He  is   gracious,  desiring  our 
salvation,  and  making  pro^ision  for  it  at  the  greatest 
cost  to  Himself,  even  the   sacrifice  of  His  own  Son. 
St.  Paul  traces  this  wonderful  Divine  movement  back 
to  two  motives.     The  first  is  the  love  of  God.     Thus 
he  says,  "  God  commendeth  His  own  love  toward  us,  in 
that  while  we  were  yet  sinners  Christ  died  for  us  " 
(Pom.  v.  8) ;    and    "  in  love  having  foreordained    us 
unto  adoption  as  sons  "  (Eph.  i.  4,  5).     Christians  are 
''  vessels  of  mercy  "  (Pom.  ix.  23).     The  second  motive 
is  the  righteousness   of   God.     God   so  justifies  as  to 


186  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

manifest  His  own  righteousness  (iii.  25,  26).  The 
term  "  righteousness  "  (hKaioavvrj)  is  never  used  by  St. 
Paul  for  punitive  justice,  for  which  he  has  another 
word  {SLKaioKpLo-ca,  ii.  5).  He  always  employs  the 
term  in  an  ethical  sense.  Nor  do  we  ever  find  the 
idea  it  contains  set  in  opposition  to  love ;  but,  as  in 
the  Old  Testament  (e.g.,  Psalm  Ixxi.  17;  xcviii.  2; 
ciii.  17),  it  is  directly  associated  with  mercy.  Eight- 
eousness  seeks  just  what  love  seeks — viz.,  the  destruc- 
tion of  sin. 

St.  Paul  is  equally  decided  in  connecting  the  work 
of  redemption  with  Jesus  Christ,  not  only  as  the 
agent  and  instrument  for  effecting  the  gracious  Divine 
purpose,  but  also  as  Himself  willingly  carrying  out 
the  work  because  of  His  own  love  for  mankind.  "  God 
was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto  Himself" 
(2  Cor.  V.  19).  To  this  end  not  only  do  we  read 
that  "  God  sent  forth  His  Son  "  (Gal.  iv.  4),  but  also 
that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  "  gave  Himself "  (i.  4) ; 
so  that  the  Apostle  can  write  of  Him  with  adoring 
gratitude  as  "  the  Son  of  God,  who  loved  me,  and 
gave  Himself  up  for  me"  (ii.  20).  The  Person  of 
Christ  is  the  object  of  love  and  faith,  because  our 
salvation  is  attributed  to  our  Lord  Himself,  and  not 
merely  to  some  experience  under  which  He  was 
passive.  His  whole  life,  too,  is  associated  with  this 
great  work — His  advent.  His  incarnation.  His 
ministry.  His  death.  His  resurrection.  His  ascension 
(Rom.  viii.  34).  Yet  there  is  this  difference  between 
St.  Peter's  references  to  the  life  of  Christ  and  those  of 
St.  Paul,  that  while  the  former  dwells  on  the  course 
of   the   earthly  ministry  of  One  who  "  went  about 


THE  NEW  TESTA.VENJ'  187 

doing  good,"  on  the  deeds  and  the  sufferings  which 
he  himself  had  witnessed,  the  latter  directs  our 
attention  to  the  great  initial  acts  of  coming  into  the 
world,  undertaking  the  work  of  salvation,  etc.,  and 
the  final  consummation  in  death  and  resurrection. 
The  essential  worth  of  Christ's  work  seems  to  be  traced 
by  St.  Paul  to  obedience.  Thus  he  says,  "  As  through 
one  man's  disobedience  the  many  were  made  sinners, 
even  so  through  the  obedience  of  One  shall  the  many 
be  made  righteous  "  (v.  19).  Here  St.  Paul's  doctrine 
of  solidarity  emerges,  showing  that  the  incarnation  by 
which  Christ  is  related  to  us  as  the  Second  Adam 
conveys  to  us  grac?,  just  as  the  first  Adam's  relation- 
ship conveyed  sin.  The  resurrection  also  has  a  vital 
connection  with  the  w^ork  of  Christ.  He  was  raised 
up  for  our  justification  (iv.  25).  This  cannot  merely 
mean  the  assurance  of  the  Messiahship  of  Christ. 
The  lesurrection  is  the  sign  of  God's  acceptance  of 
Christ ;  and  it  is  more,  it  is  the  evidence  that  Christ 
lives.  He  lives  to  justify  us  as  a  present,  active 
Saviour. 

While,  however,  the  very  being  of  Christ  and  His 
whole  life-mission,  especially  His  incarnation  and 
His  resurrection,  are  involved  in  the  vast  task  of 
redeeming  the  world,  St.  Paul  assigns  a  place  of 
honour  to  our  Lord's  death.  He  not  only  preaches 
a  crucified  Christ,  but  his  message  is  emphatically 
"the  word  of  the  Cross"  (1  Cor.  i.  18).  He  teaches 
tliat  Jesus  Christ  died  to  save  the  world.  This  is 
distinctly  Pauline  doctrine.  It  is  not  found  in  the 
speeches  in  the  Acts;  it  is  not  found  in  St.  Peter 
until  after  that  Apostle  has  come  under  the  influence 


188  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

of  St.  Paul.*  It  is  prominent  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  and  in  St.  John's  writings ;  but  these  are  all 
late  works.  Yet  St.  Paul  does  not  claim  to  have 
discovered  it,  or  to  have  had  it  as  a  special  revelation, 
as  he  claims  his  pecuHar  gospel  of  free  justification 
apart  from  the  law  to  have  come  to  him  directly 
from  God ;  for  he  places  this  truth  side  by  side  with 
the  detailed  evidence  for  the  resurrection  as  part 
of  the  deposit  which  he  has  received,  saying,  "  For 
I  deKvered  unto  you  first  of  all  that  which  also  I 
received,  how  that  Christ  died  for  our  shis  accord- 
ing to  the  Scriptures"  (1  Cor.  xv.  3).  Possibly  his 
reference  is  to  a  tradition  of  our  Lord's  woids  about 
giving  His  life  as  a  ransom  for  many  (Mark  x.  45), 
or  to  the  statement  at  the  institution  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  which  St.  Paul  himself  quotes  (1  Cor.  xi.  25). 
The  mention  of  the  Scriptures  points  to  Isa.  liii.,  a 
favourite  passage  with  the  Apostles,  meditation  on 
which  might  have  led  to  the  thought  that  our  Lord's 
death  was  designed  by  God  to  have  an  atoning 
efficacy.  Yet  it  must  have  been  the  individual 
inspiration  of  St.  Paul  by  the  Spirit  of  Gcd  which 
enabled  the  Apostle  to  work  out  from  these  data 
a  great  doctrine  of  the  Cross,  which  for  clearness 
and  fulness  is  really  new,  and  constitutes  a  forward 
step  in  the  development  of  revelation. 

When  we  inquire  how  the  death  of  Christ  can 
materially  contribute  to  the  effecting  of  our  salvation, 
we  find  many  luminous  hints  in  the  writings  of  St. 
Paul,   although   his  ideas  on  the  subject   are  never 

*  In  1  Peter,  which  shows  acquaintance  with  some  of  St. 

Paul's  writinors. 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  189 

gathered  into  one  complete  theory.  He  tells  us  that 
Chi'ist  died  for  ns  and  for  our  sins.  It  has  been 
pointed  out  that,  while  he  uses  the  terms  "  con- 
cerning" {-rrepi)  and  '-on  helialf  of"  (vTrep),  he 
never  employs  the  phrase  "  instead  of  "  (dvTt)  in  this 
connection.  He  says  that  Christ  died  on  our  behalf 
and  because  of  our  sins;  he  does  not  in  so  many 
words  say  that  Christ  died  in  our  stead.  And  yet  in 
a  certain  sense  must  not  this  be  true  of  the  whole 
broad  fact  ?  We  were  under  the  death  penalty  ;  but 
now  we  need  not  ^^ei'ish  :  the  ground  of  our  escape 
is  that  Christ  died.  What  is  this  but  saying  that 
Christ  died  instead  of  cur  dpng?  St.  Paul,  however, 
does  not  go  the  step  further  of  saying- that  Christ 
suffered  the  very  death  we  would  have  endured,  or  that 
He  was  punished  instead  of  us.  He  did  not  die  the  very 
death  we  should  have  died,  for  that  is  eternal  death, 
which  Christ  did  not  suffer ;  and  we  do  not  escape  the 
very  death  He  died,  for  He  died  a  bodily  death,  and 
that  we  must  die  (physically,  though  not  in  its  moral 
significance).  Still,  He  died  on  the  Cross  that  we 
might  not  die  eternally.  In  this  sense  His  dying  is 
instead  of  our  dying. 

There  are  two  strong  expressions  wliich  bring  out 
most  forcibly  St.  Paul's  idea  of  our  Lord's  redeeming 
sufferings.  He  tells  us  that  Christ  was  made  to 
be  "sin  {dixapriav)  on  our  behalf"  (2  Cor.  v.  21), 
and  "a  curse  for  us"  (Gal.  iii.  13),  The  first 
of  these  terms  cannot  mean  "  a  sin  offering,"  be- 
cause the  phrase  for  that  is  different  (viz.,  ttc/jI 
d/xaprtas),*  because  in  the  preceding  clause  the  word 
*  E.'j.,  Rom.  viii  3  ;  conf.  Lev.  xvi.  5  and  Heb.  x.  8. 


190  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

"sin"  occurs  in  the  ordinary  sense  ("  Him  who  knew 
no  sin  "),  and  because  the  following  clause — to  which 
the  one  under  consideration  is  in  direct  antithesis — 
refers  to  righteousness  as  the  opposite  of  the  sin  here 
mentioned.     Neither  can  we  follow  Holsten  in  sup- 
posing   St.    Paul   to    mean    that    Christ    was   really 
made  a  sinner  when  He  became  a  man,  and  so  came 
in  for  a  share  of  Adam's  sin  since  that  was  latent 
in  the  race,  though  without  being  guilty  of  personal 
sin  ;  for  this  is  contrary  to  what  we  have  seen  to 
be   St.   Paul's  express  teaching.     The  daring  phrase 
probably  means  that  Christ  was  treated  as  a  sinner, 
so  that    He    came    into  the  shame   and  horror  and 
suffering   of   sin.      The   second   expression    is    more 
clearly  elucidated  by  the  context.     The   whole   sen- 
tence runs  :    "  Christ  redeemed   us   from   the    curse 
of   the  law,   having  become  a   curse  for  us ;  for    it 
is  written,  Cursed   is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a 
tree."     Here  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  St.  Paul  does 
not  say  that  Christ  endured  the  curse  of  the  law,  for 
he   does  not  repeat  the  definite  article,  as  he  must 
have  done  if  this  had  been  his  meaning.     He  does 
not  write  that  Christ  became  "  the  curse,"  but  that 
He  became  "  a  curse."     Moreover,  he  tells  us  what 
this  curse  was.     It  consisted  in  crucifixion.     To  be 
crucified  was  to  be  cursed  :   "  for  it  is  written,  Cursed 
is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree."     Jesus  was  not 
crucified  because  He  was  cursed ;  He  was  cursed  be- 
cause He  was  crucified.  That  is  what  St.  Paul  distinctly 
aflirms.     We  have  no  justification  for  importing  the 
notion  of  some  mysterious  additional  curse  pronounced 
by  God  over  the  head  of  the  Sufferer. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  191 

Three  most  significant  words  are  employed  by  iSt. 
Paul  in  describing  the  atoning  efficacy  of  the  life,  and 
especially  the  death,  of  Jesus  Christ.  These  are — 
"reconciliation"  (KaraAAayr/,  2  Cor.  v.  18,  19); 
"propitiation"  {IXaa-Trjpiov.  Kom.  iii.  25);  and 
"  redemption "  (ttTroAvVptocrts,  ver.  24).  There  need 
be  little  difficulty  with  the  first  of  these.  It  implies 
that  sin  consists  in  a  quarrel  between  man  and 
God,  and  that  Christ  puts  an  end  to  that  quarrel, 
and  brings  us  back  into  friendly  relations  with  our 
Father.  It  is  to  be  remarked  that  St.  Paul  nevtr 
writes  of  any  reconciling  of  God  to  man  ;  he  only 
mentions  the  reconciling  of  the  world  to  God.  No 
doubt  the  Greek  word  {air oXvTpwa is)  has  a  double 
bearing,  and  signifies  a  mutual  relationship  ;  so  that 
even  when  it  is  used  for  one  person  being  reconciled 
to  another,  it  may  imply  a  new  favourable  attitude 
in  the  second  party  ;  and  the  "  not  imputing  "  of  sins 
seems  to  lean  in  this  direction.  But,  inasmuch  as 
the  reconciliation  begins  with  God's  movement,  the 
term  cannot  be  stretched  to  include  a  reconciling  of 
God  to  man.  If  a  third  party  effected  the  reconcilia- 
tion the  idea  might  be  implied,  but  not  when  God 
Himself  brings  it  about. 

The  second  word  (tXao-rr/ptoi/)  is  translated  "pro- 
pitiation "  in  the  English  Aversions.  It  is  used 
in  the  LXX.  and  in  Heb.  ix.  5  for  the  "  mercy- 
seat  " — i.e.,  the  cover  of  the  ark.  But  this  cannot 
be  its  meaning  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  be- 
cause here  it  has.  no  article,  and  we  should  expect 
to  read  "  the  mercy-seat."  Besides,  we  have  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  Italian  readers  would  understand  an 


192  ■       THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

obscure  allusion  to  the  tabernacle  furniture  without 
receiving  any  hint  that  this  was  being  used  as  an 
image  of  Christ.  Lastly,  we  cannot  speak  of  "  the 
blood "  of  the  mercy-seat.  Accordingly  some  take 
the  word  to  mean  an  "  expiatory  offering."  But  it 
never  bears  that  sense  elsewhere.  Therefore  we  must 
interpret  it  as  an  adjective  signifying  "  j)ropitiatory." 
Inasmuch  as  it  is  apparently  in  the  neuter  gender,  it 
would  seem  to  stand  for  "  a  means  of  propitiation." 
Still,  there  remains  some  difficulty,  seeing  that  it  is 
God  who  sets  forth  Chi-ist  as  this  means  of  propitia- 
tion. How  can  God  be  said  to  propitiate  Himself  ? 
An  attempt  at  the  removal  of  the  difficulty  has  been 
made  by  treating  the  two  Divine  attributes,  Mercy 
and  Justice,  as  virtually  separate  persons  needing  to 
be  reconciled.  Then  Mercy  prepares  a  propitiation 
for  Justice.  But  this  fanciful  drama  is  not  found 
in  St.  Paul's  teaching.  Probably  we  must  understand 
the  propitiation  to  be  that  by  means  of  which  God 
acts  graciously  towards  us — as,  in  fact,  "  a  means  of 
grace,"  but  with  this  associated  idea,  that  while  God 
always  willed  tg  be  gracious,  it  was  not  possible  for  His 
intention  to  be  exercised  apart  from  what  Christ  was 
and  did.  Our  Lord  removes  the  obstacle  which  prevents 
the  grace  of  God  from  flowing  into  the  heart  of  man. 
To  us  this  looks  like  propitiating  God,  because  it  has 
the  efTect  of  propitiation.  Sacrificial  allusions  point 
in  the  same  direction.  St.  Paul's  mention  of  the 
blood  of  Christ  suggests  that  His  death  was  a  sacrifice, 
for  in  the  rites  of  the  altar  the  blood  was  of  primary 
importance,  because  it  signified  the  life  of  the  victim 
surrendered  to  God  for  the  benefit  of  those  people  on 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  193 

whom  it  was  sprinkled.  So  does  the  phrase  *'  for 
sin "  (TTcpi  aixapTias,  Rom.  viii.  3),  which  was  a 
technical  term  for  the  sin  offering ;  the  Paschal 
Lamb  to  which  Christ  is  compared  (1  Cor.  v.  7)  is 
also  sacrificial.  These  allusions  naturally  suggest  the 
idea  of  clearing  guilt,  and  so  removing  the  great 
hindrance  to  our  enjoyment  of  God's  favour. 

The  third  word  is  "  redemption."  This  may  be  a 
reminiscence  of  the  often-quoted  saying  of  our  Lord 
comparing  His  death  to  a  ransom.  Like  Christ, 
St.  Paul  refrains  from  giving  us  a  hint  as  to  the 
existence  of  any  person — either  God  (Anselm)  or  the 
devil  (Origen) — to  whom  the  price  is  paid.  He 
dwells  only  on  the  great  cost — the  life-blood  of 
Christ  (Eph.  i.  7),  and  on  the  end  attained — the 
liberation  of  souls.  The  image  is  of  captives  set 
free.  The  freedom  is  both  from  the  curse  of  the 
law  (Gal.  iii.  13),  and  from  the  dominion  of  sin 
(Rom.  vi.  18).  At  the  same  time,  the  Christian  is 
by  no  means  free  from  obligations.  Since  he  was 
bought  by  God,  he  belongs  to  God  (1  Cor.  vi.  19). 
He  has  the  liberty  of  sonship,  which  is  associated 
with  intelligent,  affectionate  obedience. 

Thus  we  are  brought  to  the  specific  benefits  con- 
ferred by  the  work  of  Christ.  In  the  first  place,  we 
have  the  forgiveness  of  sins  (Col.  i.  14).  "  The  wages 
of  sin  is  death."  Prom  the  endurance  of  this  awful 
result  of  past  conduct  a  way  of  escape  has  been  made 
by  our  Lord  (Rom.  vi.  23).  "There  is  therefore  now 
no  condemnation  to  them  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus  " 
(viii.  1).  But  the  work  of  Christ  is  not  con- 
fined to   obviating   the  noxious   consequences  of  sin. 

13 


194  TBE  THEOLOGY  OF 

He  destroys  sin  itself.  Thus  St.  Paul  writes,  "God 
sending  His  own  Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh, 
and  as  an  offering  for  sin,  condemned  sin  in  the 
flesh  "  (ver.  3).  Here  it  is  not  the  condemnation  of 
the  offender — who,  in  point  of  fact,  is  acquitted — but 
the  condemnation  of  sin  that  the  Apostle  attributes 
to  God  in  Christ.  We  must  recollect  St.  Paul's 
terrible  picture  of  Sin  as  a  potentate  reigning  over 
the  world.  Now  we  see  God,  by  means  of  the  mission 
and  sacrifice  of  Christ,  dethroning  the  monstrous 
usurper,  and  condemning  it  in  its  peculiar  territory, 
"the  flesh."  This  signification  of  the  phrase  is 
confirmed  by  the  context.  In  the  previous  verse  we 
read,  "  The  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus 
made  me  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  of  death"  (ver.  2). 
"  The  law  of  sin  and  death  "  must  be  the  reigning 
power  of  evil  prevalent  in  the  world.  Sinners  live 
under  the  yoke  of  that  bad  law.  Their  liberation  by 
Christ  consists  in  the  fact  that  they  are  now  set  free 
from  its  tyranny.  Freedom  is  brought  about  by  the 
defeat  of  the  monarch  Sin,  the  law  and  government 
of  which  disappear  when  the  power  that  puts  them 
forth  is  shattered.  Then  redemption  is  also  described 
as  a  deliverance  from  the  evil  world.  Jesus  Christ 
gave  Himself  for  our  sins  that  He  might  deliver  us 
out  of  this  present  evil  world  (or  age,  atwv,  Gal.  i.  4). 
Lastly,  the  work  of  Christ  is  positive.  He  not  only 
delivers,  He  gives  life.  He  renews — makes  us  new 
creatures  (1  Cor.  v.  17). 

These  results  of  the  redeeming  work  of  Christ — 
deliverance  from  the  doom  of  sin  in  forgiveness,  and 
liberation   from  its   power  in   the   quickening   of   a 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  195 

new  life — are  intimately  connected  in  the  writings  of 
St.  Paul,  who  attributes  both  directly  to  Christ.  He 
is  not  satisfied  to  let  the  main  work  of  Christ  issue 
in  the  first  result,  and  to  treat  the  conquest  of  sin 
itself  as  a  mere  consequence  of  human  gratitude 
i-eflecting  on  the  great  blessing  of  forgiveness.  Any 
such  notion  is  contrary  to  his  teaching  in  two  respects. 
First,  it  makes  the  overthrow  of  the  power  of  sin 
a  work  of  man.  Secondly,  it  puts  this  in  a  sub- 
sidiary position,  and  at  a  second  stage  in  the  process 
of  salvation.  With  St.  Paul  the  internal  victory 
won  over  sin  is  as  really  and  fully  Christ's  work  as 
the  escape  from  its  doom.  With  St.  Paul,  too,  this 
is  a  primary  work  of  Christ.  Moreover,  the  two 
results  are  contemporaneous,  and  they  intercommuni- 
cate, so  that  the  one  afi'ects  the  other.  ''  There  is  no 
condemnation  to  them  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus  "  and 
"  He  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus  is  a  new  creature  "  are 
mutually  conditioning  truths.  The  forgiveness  makes 
the  renewal  possible  by  restoring  intercourse  with  God 
in  the  great  reconciliation,  so  that  the  DiWne  power 
of  creation  is  at  once  received  through  Christ; 
and  the  concomitant  renewal  makes  the  forgiveness 
morally  wholesome  by  saving  it  from  any  taint 
of  laxity.  This  is  clear  in  Rom.  viii.,  where,  after 
opening  with  a  triumphant  exclamation  of  confidence 
in  the  freedom  of  the  Christian  from  condemnation, 
St.  Paul  immediately  and  most  significantly  adds 
a  description  of  the  new  life  of  moral  liberty,  con- 
necting the  second  thought  with  the  first  by  means 
of  the  conjunction  "/or  ''  (yap) :  "  There  is  therefore 
now  no  condemnation,  etc.  .  .  .  foo'  the  law  of  the 


196  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

Spirit  of   life  in   Cliriist   Jesus  made  me  free   from 
the  law  of  sin  and  death,"  etc. 

V.    THE  CHEISTIAN  LIFE 

No  doctrine  is  more  familiarly  associated  with  the 
name  of  St.  Paul  than  that  of  justification  by  faith. 
It  may  be  said  with  truth  that  this  is  just  the 
complete  statement  and  theoretical  explanation  of  an 
idea  which  was  taught  practically  and  implicitly  by 
all  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists  of  New  Testament 
times ;  for  they  all  offered  forgiveness  of  sins  on  con- 
dition of  adhesion  to  Jesus  as  Christ.  Still,  many  of 
them  shrank  from  the  consequences  which  St.  Paul 
unflinchingly  deduced.  He  was  the  first  to  give 
intellectual  form  to  the  thought,  and  the  first  to  dis- 
entangle it  from  the  remnants  of  Jewish  conceptions 
which  were  essentially  inconsistent  with  it. 

History  shows  that  theological  definitions  are  gener- 
ally forged  in  the  white  heat  of  controversy ;  and  we 
have  to  thank  the  exigencies  of  polemics  for  the 
luminous  expositions  of  Pauline  theology  which  are 
preserved  in  the  New  Testament.  The  Apostle  was 
compelled  to  formulate  his  beliefs  with  exceptional 
distinctness  in  order  to  defend  his  own  personal 
position  and  the  claims  of  his  specific  teaching.  But 
there  was  no  dispute  between  St.  Paul  and  his 
opponents — as  at  a  later  date  there  was  between 
Luther  and  the  Koman  Catholics — concerning  the 
nature  of  justification.  Both  parties  were  agreed  on 
this  point.  The  only  question  was  as  to  the  means 
by  which  the  result  desired  and  aimed  at  by  all  was 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  197 

to  be  brought  about.  It  is  now  admitted  that  the 
idea  of  justification  which  passed  over  from  Judaism 
to  Christianity  is  not  that  of  an  ethical  change — the 
making  a  bad  person  good.  Inchsputably  it  signifies 
clearing  from  a  charge  of  guilt,  or  even  a  more 
general  vindication  of  rightness  where  no  charge  has 
been  made — not  making  right,  but  declaring  a  person 
to  be  right,  and  then,  by  a  natural  transition,  treating 
him  as  right.  The  word  "  justify "  ("11^,  St/catow) 
is  used  in  this  sense  both  in  the  Old  Testament  and 
in  the  New.  Thus  we  read,  "  Enter  not  into  judg- 
ment with  Thy  servant,  for  in  Thy  sight  shall  no  man 
living  be  justified  "  (Psalm  cxliii.  2).  Our  Lord  says 
of  the  publican,  in  contrast  with  the  Pharisee,  ''  This 
man  went  down  to  his  house  justified  rather  than  the 
other"  (Luke  xviii.  14).  Here  we  come  to  the  special 
application  of  the  word  which  is  most  frequent  in  St. 
Paul.  The  simplest  form  of  justification  is  the  clear- 
ing of  the  character  of  an  innocei^  person.  In  the  Old 
Testament  the  magistrate  who  justifies  the  wicked 
man  is  condemned  (Pro v.  x\'ii.  15).  But  the  Pauline 
justification  is  applied  to  sinners.  It  designates  the 
legal  consequences  of  forgiveness.  The  pardoned 
person  is  treated  as  if  he  were  innocent ;  and  this 
treatment,  when  viewed  in  relation  to  law,  is  called 
justification.  Hence  we  come  to  a  specific  use  of  the 
kindred  Greek  word  for  righteousness  (StKaioo-vVr;). 
No  doubt  this  word  is  generally  used  for  rightness  of 
character  or  conduct.  But  St.  Paul  identifies  it  with 
justification.  Thus,  after  mentioning  a  "  righteousness 
of  God  through  faith  .  .  .  for  all  have  sinned  and 
fallen  short  of  the  glory  of  God,"  he  immediately  adds, 


198  TEE   THEOLOGY  OF 

"  being  justified  freely  by  His  grace,"  etc.  (Eom.  iii. 
22-4;  see  also  v.  17,  18,  where  the  righteousness  of 
ver.  17  is  identified  with  the  justification  of  ver.  18). 
The  sinner  who  is  justified,  and  therefore  treated  as 
righteous,  has  the  new  God-given  righteousness.  This 
can  only  mean  that  by  the  grace  of  forgiveness  he  is 
put  in  a  new  relation  to  God,  the  very  same  relation 
as  that  of  a  man  whose  conduct  had  been  right. 
Undoubtedly  there  would  be  the  dishonesty  of  the 
judge  who  is  blamed  in  the  Old  Testament  for  justify- 
ing the  wicked,  if  this  were  all  that  occurred.  But, 
on  the  one  hand,  St.  Paul  directly  connects  the  justi- 
fication and  its  consequent  righteousness  with  the 
redeeming  work  of  Christ  (iii.  24) ;  and,  on  the 
other,  he  always  regards  the  right  relation  with  God 
as  the  basis  and  source  of  a  new  character.  That 
this  second  point  is  most  important  may  be  seen 
unmistakably  when  we  consider  St.  Paul's  account  of 
his  experience  in  chap,  vii.,  where  he  is  not  primarily 
seeking  forgiveness  of  past  sin,  but  rather  liberation 
from  the  indwelling  tyranny  of  sin.  Yet  he  attains 
his  end  by  the  justification  which  he  discovers  in 
Christ,  and  which  issues  in  the  condition  of  freedom 
from  condemnation  with  which  the  following  chapter 
opens.  Having  found  the  secret  of  Jesus,  he  ex- 
claims, "  There  is  therefore  now  no  condemnation," 
etc.  (viii.  1). 

St.  Paul  approaches  the  question  of  justification 
from  the  standpoint  of  his  early  Jewish  culture, 
according  to  which  it  appeared  to  be  a  result  of  duti- 
ful obedience  to  law.  Sometimes  he  uses  the  word 
"  law  "  indefinitely,  without  an  article  or  in  a  general 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  199 

sense,  for  a  rule  of  life  (vii.  25  ;  viii.  2),  but  more 
often  he  prefaces  it  with  the  definite  article ;  and 
when  this  is  not  followed  by  any  other  defining  words 
— when  he  says  simply  "  the  law  " — he  occasionally 
refers  to  the  Pentateuch  as  a  book  {e.g.^  Gal.  iv.  21), 
or  even  to  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament  {eg., 
Eom.  iii.  19) ;  but  usually  he  means  the  system 
of  law  contained  in  the  Pentateuch,  that  which  is 
popularly  understood  as  the  Mosaic  law.  He  never 
makes  any  distinction  between  the  moral  law  and 
the  ceremonial.  He  never  says  that  the  rules  of  ritual 
are  to  be  abolished  while  the  social  code  is  retained. 
His  chief  contest  with  the  Judaisers  turns  on  a  rite 
— circumcision ;  but  in  his  theological  discussions  he 
always  leans  to  a  consideration  of  the  ethical  require- 
ments of  the  law.  These  he  regards  as  good.  He 
gives  no  excuse  for  the  extravagances  of  his  over- 
zealous  disciple  Marcion  in  denouncing  the  law  as 
an  evil  thing.  Thus,  referring  to  the  tenth  com- 
mandment, he  writes,  "  The  law  is  holy,  and  the 
commandment  holy,  and  righteous,  and  good '' 
(vii.  12).  He  does  not  deny  that  perfect  obedience  to 
the  law  would  issue  in  life ;  he  does  not  deny,  there- 
fore, that  theoretically  the  Pharisees  are  right  in 
proclaiming  justification  by  law.  It  is  in  the  insist- 
ence on  a  practical  application  of  their  theory  that 
they  are  wrong.  Justification  in  this  way  is  impos- 
sible— not  because  if  the  means  succeeded  the  end 
would  not  be  attained,  but  because  the  means  never 
succeed.  This  leads  to  a  rejection  of  the  law  as  a 
way  of  salvation.  It  is  not  bad  in  itself;  it  is 
simply  ineffectual.     That  is  no  real  fault  in  the  law. 


200  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

The  reason  of  failure  is  to  be  found  in   the  flesh, 
which  with  St.   Paul   is  sinful.     The  law  is  "  weak 
through    the  flesh^^  (viii.    3).       Now,    inasmuch     as 
the  law  confers  no  power  to  help  us  to  perform  its 
precepts,  if  we  are  to  be  justified  and  saved  at  all  it 
must  be  by  some  other  method.     Here,  it  would  seem, 
St.  Peter  agreed  with  St.  Paid,  for  he,  too,  appears  to 
have  admitted  "  that  a  man  is  not  justified  by  the 
works  of  the  law"  (Gal.  ii.  16).     But  St.  Paul  went 
further.     He  would  not  allow  observance  of  the  law 
to  be  superadded  as  rule  of  Christian  conduct,  even 
though  it  was  not  resorted  to  as  a  method  of  salvation. 
His  whole  argument  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians 
is  against  this  practice.     Such  observance  is  a  return 
to  bondage.     For  the  Christian  the  law  is  abolished. 
God  had  only  granted  it  as  a  temporary  expedient  to 
lead   men  to  Christ  through  its  provoking  sin  into 
activity,  and  so  revealing  it.     The  law  never  was  a 
means  of  salvation.     St.  Paul  finds  the  proofs  of  his 
doctrine  in  the  utter  failure  of  the  law  to  effect  salva- 
tion (Rom.  ii.,  iii.),   in  the  fact  that  Abraham  was 
justified  on  another  basis  before  the  law  was  insti- 
tuted (iv.),  and  in  the  triumphant  fruits  of  the  method 
of  justification  which  he  preaches  (v.,  viii.). 

This  method  of  justification  is  called  "  a  righteous- 
ness of  God "  (SiKatoa-vvr]  @€ov).  "  But  now,"  says 
St.  Paul,  "  apart  from  the  law  a  righteousness  of 
God  hath  been  manifested,  being  witnessed  by  the 
law  and  the  prophets"  (iii.  21).  Bighteousness  is 
produced  by  God.  It  is  He  who  justifies,  sets  us 
right  with  Himself.  We  must  cease  our  strivings  along 
the  line  of  law,  and  accept  the  righteousness  which 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  201 

God  gives  freely,  if  we  would  be  justified  in  His  sight. 
God  confers  righteousness  of  His  own  will,  and 
on  whomsoever  He  chooses  (ix.  14-18).  This  does 
not  mean  that  the  action  of  God  is  arbitrary,  or 
^vithout  good  grounds.  It  simply  means  that  it  is  His 
action.  That  God  has  His  reasons  for  justifying 
some  and  not  justif}  ing  others  St.  Paul  plainly  teaches 
when  he  breaks  into  a  rhapsody  of  admh-ation  for 
"  the  depth  of  the  riches  both  of  the  wisdom  and 
the  knowledge  of  God"  in  regard  to  this  matter 
(xi.  33).  The  reference  to  wisdom  and  knowledge 
points  to  great,  though  inscrutable,  reasons  for  the 
Divine  preference.  Further,  St.  Paul  holds  that 
these  reasons  are  associated  with  the  character  and 
conduct  of  men,  since  he  says,  "  Whom  HQforehiew, 
He  also  foreordained,"  etc.  (^dii.  29).  It  is  true 
the  Greek  word  translated  "  foreknew "  (-Tvpoiyvo)) 
could  mean  "foreordained"  (1  Peter  i.  20);  but  it 
usually  stands  for  the  signification  implied  by  its 
etymology  {e.g.,  Acts  xxvi.  5).  It  must  have  this 
meaning  here,  because  in  this  case  the  Apostle 
used  another  word  to  signify  "  He  foreordained " 
(Trpowpto-e),  and  to  give  both  words  the  same  sense 
is  to  accuse  St.  Paul  of  obvious  tautology.  When 
discussing  the  rejection  of  Israel  the  Apostle  appears 
to  fall  back  on  the  absolute  and  unconditioned  will 
of  God  in  order  to  rebuke  the  impertinence  of  gain- 
sayers.  Here  God's  will  is  concerned  with  the  destiny 
of  the  nation,  rather  than  with  that  of  individuals. 
But  even  in  this  place  St.  Paul  distinctly  states  that 
it  was  because  of  their  unbelief  and  their  stumbling 
that  the  Jews  were  supplanted.      His  severe  blame  of 


202  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

the  Jews  implies  that  the  rejection  of  them  was  not  arbi- 
trary. Nor  does  he  hold  that  it  was  final.  "  Brethren," 
he  says,  "  my  heart's  desire  and  my  supplication  to  God 
is  for  them  that  they  may  be  saved "  (Rom.  x.  1). 
Therefore,  while  the  image  of  the  potter  and  the 
clay  is  used  to  silence  any  questioning  of  God's  right 
to  determine  the  destinies  of  men,  it  cannot  be 
pressed  into  a  declaration  that  God  determines  those 
destinies  irrespective  of  conduct,  or  that  His  rejec- 
tion of  any  people  at  some  one  time  is  for  all  time. 

On  the  human  side  the  one  condition  of  justifica- 
tion is  faith.  We  are  justified  "  by  faith "  {Ik 
TTto-Tctos,  V.  1).  When  St.  Paul  is  writing  of  faith 
he  is  not  thinking  of  the  object  of  St.  James's 
condemnation — the  faith  that  believes  in  the  truth 
of  a  proposition,  but  does  not  act  upon  it.  His  faith 
is  different  from  that  dead  faith  in  two  respects. 
First,  its  object  is  a  person,  not  a  dogma;  it  is  faith 
in  God  (iv.  24),  faith  in  Christ  (Gal.  ii.  16).  Second, 
it  includes  an  act  of  will.  It  is  not  bare,  intellectual 
assent ;  it  is  trust.  Such  faith  involves  the  whole 
inner  man.  "  With  the  heart  {i.e.,  the  inner  life) 
man  believeth  unto  righteousness  "  (Rom.  viii.  10). 
Faith  is  an  active  power,  for  it  works  through  love 
(Gal.  V.  6).  Though  it  is  contrasted  with  the  works 
of  the  law,  still  it  issues  in  what  the  law  really 
aimed  at.  This  faith  contains  a  spirit  of  obedience. 
It  is  directed  to  One  who  is  a  Lord  as  well  as  Saviour, 
and  therefore  it  implies  loyalty  as  well  as  confidence. 
So  we  read  of  "  obedience  of  faith  "  (Rom.  xvi.  26). 
Indeed,  the  very  exercise  of  faith  is  an  act  of  obedi- 
ence,  because  it  is  what   God   wills  us  to  practise. 


THE   XEW  TESTAMENT  203 

Now,  referring  to  the  case  of  Abraham,  St.  Paul 
reminds  us  how  the  patriarch's  faith  was  reckoned 
to  him  for  righteousness  (iv.  3).  This  he  takes  to  be 
analogous  to  our  justification  by  faith.  He  never 
says  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed  to 
us.  It  is  faith  that  is  imputed  for  righteousness, 
though  this  is  on  the  ground  of  our  Lord's  propitiation. 
Such  a  connection  of  faith  and  righteousness  is  not 
accidental  and  external.  Abraham's  personal  trust 
when  he  received  a  promise  of  a  child  is  the  type  of 
simple,  loyal,  heartfelt  confidence  in  God.  Who- 
ever has  a  similar  faith  is  justified,  simply  because 
God  takes  this  faith  for  righteousness.  It  is  an  act 
of  grace  in  Him  to  do  so.  There  is  no  merit  in  the 
faith,  which  is  not  like  one  soHtary  work  that  saves 
when  all  the  works  of  the  law  fail.  Nevertheless,  it 
has  in  it  the  very  essence  of  a  right  relation  to  God. 
Thus  its  connection  with  righteousness  is  inward, 
spiritual,  vital. 

Justification  is  considered  with  reference  to  law,  and 
in  discussing  it  St.  Paul  draws  on  his  rabbinical  train- 
ing, and  plunges  into  the  language  of  the  courts,  so 
that  here  Christianity  is  presented  to  us  in  legal  terms. 
This  was  natural  to  a  man  of  his  special  training,  and 
perhaps  necessary  in  arguing  with  law-defending  Jews. 
But  when  he  is  not  engaged  in  the  controversy  with 
the  Judaisers  St.  Paul  drops  the  legal  formulae  and 
falls  back  on  an  entirely  different  style.  Now"  his 
mystical  nature  emerges.  He  delights  to  dwell  on 
the  personal  union  of  the  Christian  with  his  Lord. 
It  is  in  this  way  that  the  Apostle  most  frequently 
describes  the  deepest  experiences  of  the  spiritual  life. 


204  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

The  Christian  dies  with  Christ,  is  buried  with  Him, 
rises  with  Him,  and  is  to  seek  those  things  which 
are  above  where  Christ  is.  The  visible  experience 
of  Christ  on  earth  is  the  type  and  pattern  of  the 
spiritual  experience  of  the  Christian ;  and  it  is  more, 
for  it  is  by  union  with  Christ  that  His  experience  is 
repeated  in  His  disciple.  The  Christian  is  "in  Christ  " 
(2  Cor.  V.  17),  and  Christ  lives  in  him.  Thus  St.  Paul 
can  say,  "  I  have  been  crucified  with  Christ,  yet  T  live  ; 
and  yet  no  longer  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me " 
(Gal.  ii.  20).  Language  such  as  this  is  very  frequent 
in  the  Epistles ;  it  is  the  Apostle's  most  characteristic 
manner  of  speech.  The  legal  condition  of  justification 
is  comparatively  external,  and  is  concerned  with 
entrance  into  the-  new  relations  with  God.  Union 
with  Christ  is  internal,  and  belongs  to  the  whole 
course  of  the  Christian  life.  To  St,  Paul  this  is  the 
very  essence  of  Christianity.  It  is  only  by  a  lack 
of  perception  for  true  proportions  that  we  select 
justification  by  faith  as  the  chief  characteristic  of 
Paulinism.  It  is  the  chief  characteristic  of  Pauline 
polemics.  But  when  he  drops  controversy,  the  subject 
on  which  St.  Paul  expatiates  most  lovingly,  and  to 
which  he  recurs  most  frequently,  is  the  mystical  union 
with  Christ. 

Regarded  in  another  way,  from  its  own  internal 
experience,  the  Christian  life  is  the  life  of  the  Spirit. 
The  Christian  receives  Christ,  receives  the  Spirit  of 
Christ,  receives  the  Holy  Spirit  (Rom.  viii.  9).  The 
results  of  this  great  endowment  are  manifold.  It 
sanctifies  us — i.e.,  consecrates  us  to  the  holy  service 
of  God.     It  is  an  indwelling  power  for  the  mastery 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  205 

of  sin  and  the  attainment  of  holiness.  Thus  ••  the 
law  (or  rule)  of  the  Spirit "  sets  us  free  from  "  the 
law  of  sin  "  (viii.  2).  The  result  is  a  higher  tone 
of  life  and  thought  with  an  accompanying  sense  of 
life  and  peace,  and  especially  a  new  consciousness 
of  sonship,  whereby  we  cry  "Abba,  Father."  The 
sonship  implies  freedom  as  opposed  to  the  old  con- 
dition of  servitude,  the  double  servitude — that  of 
sin  and  that  of  law.  The  indwelling  of  the  Spirit 
produces  gracious  fruit — "  love,  joy,  peace,  long- 
suflering,  kindness,  goodness,  faithfulness,  meekness, 
temperance"  (Gal.  v.  22,  23).  It  also  leads  to  a  new 
insight  into  the  deeper  truths  of  God.  "  The  natural 
{kI/v^lkos)  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of 
God,  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him ;  and  he  cannot 
know  them,  because  they  are  spiritually  judged.  But 
he  that  is  spiritual  (Trvev/xariKos)  judgeth  all  things  " 
(1  Cor.  ii.  14,  15).  This  higher  attainment  is  not  at 
once  reached  by  all  Christians.  Some  are  still  carnal, 
babes  who  must  be  fed  with  milk  (iii.  1,2);  while  others 
have  advanceil  to  adult  age,  and  are  called  by  a  title 
used  for  the  initiated  in  heathen  mysteries — viz.,  *'  the 
perfect  "  (ot  rcXctoi,  ii.  6).  Moreover,  there  are  certain 
specific  gifts  of  the  Spirit — such  as  wisdom,  miracle- 
working,  prophecy — which  are  distiibuted  variously 
among  different  Chiistians  (xii.  4-11).  While,  how- 
ever, the  spring  and  ins'piration  of  all  that  is  of  value 
in  the  Christian  life  is  found  in  the  Spirit  of  God,  we 
are  not  left  to  quietism.  St.  Paul's  Epistles  abound 
in  practical  exhortations.  The  Christian  life  is  a 
race,  a  warfare.  We  are  to  work  out  our  own 
salvation  while  God  works  in  us  (Phil.  ii.  12,  13). 


206  7'HE  THEOLOGY  OF 


YI.  THE  CHURCH  AND  ITS  ORDINANCES 

Following  our  Lord,  and  in  agreement  with  the  other 
Apostles,  St.  Paul  always  represented  Christianity  to 
be  a  social  religion.  The  unit  is  not  the  individual ;  it  is 
a  society.  Pauline  Christianity  could  not  be  perfectly 
realised  in  the  utmost  sanctity  of  a  solitary  soul.  It 
is  essential  for  its  development  that  there  should  be  a 
community  of  people  in  whose  mutual  relations  alone 
the  highest  spiritual  life  could  be  attained.  But  for 
the  gospel  to  work  as  a  leaven  in  general  society  is 
not  enough ;  because,  although  it  does  this,  and  thus 
affects  the  State  and  the  family,  so  long  as  the  world 
is  not  won  to  Christ  there  must  be  a  distinct  Christian 
society  smaller  than  the  world,  confined  to  the  brother- 
hood of  those  who  are  Christian  by  confession  and 
life.  This  new,  separate  society  has  its  own  peculiar 
duties  and  privileges,  conditioned  by  the  special  re- 
lationship of  its  members.  Hence  there  arises  a  new 
affection — love  of  the  brethren  (<^tXa8eX<^ia).  "  In 
love  of  the  brethren,"  writes  St.  Paul,  "  be  tenderly 
affectionate  one  to  another"  (Rom.  xii.  10).  To  the 
di\asion  of  labour,  which  determines  the  advance  of 
material  prosperity,  and  the  organisation  of  mutual 
civic  relations  which  constitutes  a  nation,  there  corre- 
sponds in  the  Christian  society  a  separation  of  function 
and  a  mutual  co-operation.  We  are  members  one  of 
another.  We  need  one  another.  We  exist  for  the 
good  of  the  whole  body.  In  a  measure  we  flourish  or 
decline  according  as  our  whole  brotherhood  flourishes 
or  declines. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  207 

The  name  of  the  Christian  brotherhood  is  "  Church  " 
{iKKXyjarta).  This  word  is  only  found  twice  in  the 
Gospels  on  the  lips  of  our  Lord.  On  one  of  these 
occasions  it  is  used  jirophetically  of  the  whole  com- 
munity of  Christians  in  the  future  (Matt.  xvi.  18); 
on  the  other  it  refers  to  an  accessible  assembly 
(xviii.  17).  The  growth  in  numbers  which  followed 
the  great  missionary  outburst  at  Pentecost,  the  coiu'se 
of  time  which  led  to  the  demand  for  some  settled 
order  of  Christian  life,  and  the  lack  of  the  \dsible 
presence  of  Christ,  which  threw  His  disciples  more 
upon  one  another,  were  three  influences  all  tending 
to  give  greater  importance  to  the  idea  of  the  Church. 
Accordingly  this  is  very  prominent  in  the  apostolic 
era.  The  word  would  be  familiar  to  Jews  as  the 
Greek  name  for  the  *'  congregation  "  of  Israel  {e.g.y 
Judg.  xxi.  8).  To  the  Greeks  themselves  it  would 
suggest  an  orderly  assembly  of  the  enfranchised 
citizens  for  the  discharge  of  the  business  of  the  State, 
although  it  was  also  used  loosely  for  any  concourse  of 
people,  even  a  self-collected  mob  (ejj.,  Acts  xix.  32). 
By  St.  Paul  it  is  appHed  to  two  distinct,  though 
related,  ideas. 

In  the  first  place,  the  word  "  Church  "  stands  for 
a  local  community  of  Christians.  Thus  we  read  of 
"  the  Church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth  "  (1  Cor.  i.  2), 
of  "  the  Churches  of  Galatia "  (xvi.  1),  and  even 
of  the  Church  in  a  house  (Rom.  xvi.  5  ;  Col.  iv.  15). 
The  latter  phrase  may  mean  the  whole  Christian 
community  in  one  locality,  this  meeting  in  a  private 
house ;  or,  as  the  house  Church  seems  to  be  dis- 
tinguished from  the  general  Church,  more  probably 


208  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

a  Christian  household.  The  members  of  such  a 
Church  are  all  addressed  as  saints  (ay tot).  St.  Paul 
is  far  from  assuming  that  they  are  immaculate ;  many 
of  them  are  very  backward,  some  of  them  are  most 
faulty,  and  need  the  exercise  of  sharp  discipline — to 
be  delivered  over  to  Satan  "  for  the  destruction  of  the 
flesh,  that  the  spirit  may  be  saved"  (1  Cor.  v.  5). 
Still,  all  are  addressed  as  consecrated  men  and  women  ; 
it  is  assumed  that  all  are  true  disciples  of  Christ. 

In  the  second  place,  St.  Paul  uses  the  word 
'*  Church "  for  the  whole  body  of  Christians.  It  is 
scarcely  correct  to  call  this  the  invisible  Church,  for  it 
is  not  ideal,  distant,  future,  or  only  spiritual.  The  ties 
that  bind  the  members  are  not  seen  ;  it  has  not  yet  any 
external  organisation,  there  is  no  common  government 
of  it  other  than  the  spiritual  government  by  Christ. 
Still,  it  consists  of  visible  members, — all  Christian  men, 
women,  and  children;  it  is,  in  fact,  the  catholic  Church, 
although  the  word  "  catholic  "  is  not  attached  to  it  by 
St.  Paul,  and  although  the  idea  of  any  contrasted 
Churches  in  schism  or  heresy  is  never  contemplated  by 
him.  The  only  schism  he  knows  takes  place  within  the 
Church.  The  local  Church  may  be  rent  by  divisions. 
But  all  sections  of  Christians  still  belong  to  "the 
Church  of  God."  This  Church  is  one  body,  with  many 
members  mutually  sei'viceable.  It  i»  the  body  of 
Christ.  When  He  is  thought  of  as  dwelling  in  it  and 
permeating  it,  He  is  regarded  as  the  Soul  in  relation 
to  the  body  (1  Cor.  xii.  12,  27).  Later,  when  our 
Lord  is  contemplated  as  ruling  it,  St.  Paul  changes 
the  image,  and  writes  of  Christ  as  the  Head  (Eph. 
iv.   15).     In  considering  the  relation  of  the  Church 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  209 

to  God,  the  Apostle  writes  of  it  as  God's  "  tilled  field," 
and  God's  "building"  (1  Cor.  iii.  9),  because  it  is  His 
work ;  and  as  a  "  sanctuary  "  (mo?)  of  God,  because 
He  dwells  in  it  (Eph.  ii.  21).  In  the  Church  all  are 
brethren ;  here  the  distinctions  of  Jew  and  Gentile, 
Greek  and  barbarian,  bond  and  free,  vanish.  The 
idea  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  is  so  prominent 
in  our  Lord's  teaching,  recedes  in  the  teaching  of  the 
Apostles.  St.  Paul,  as  Piofessor  Stevens  has  pointed 
out,*  describes  the  Church  as  the  present  community 
of  Christians,  and  the  kingdom  as  something  future, 
to  come  after  our  Lord's  second  advent. 

St.  Paul  discusses  many  details  of  the  discipline  of 
the  Church,  but  he  does  not  lay  down  any  rules  for 
its  definite  organisation.  He  never  drops  a  hint 
that  the  Spirit  of  God  is  given  in  any  especial  way  to 
or  through  a  clerical  order.  All  the  members  of  the 
Church  receive  the  Spirit.  But  the  gift  is  variously 
distributed  in  difterent  kinds  of  endowments.  All  are 
invited  to  desire  earnestly  the  greater  gifts ;  and  yet 
charity  is  better  than  the  best  of  them  (1  Cor.  xii.  31) 
A  consequence  of  the  variety  of  gifts  Ls  a  correspond- 
ing diversity  of  functions  in  the  service  of  the  Church. 
^^'ithin  the  local  Church  the  gift  of  prophecy,  i.e., 
inspired  utterance,  stands  first  (Ptom.  xii.  6) ;  but  in 
relation  to  the  whole  Christian  economy  the  Apostles 
are  named  first :  "  And  He  gave  some  to  be  apostles, 
and  some  prophets"  (Eph.  iv.  11).  These  two  classes 
are  most  fundamental.  The  Church  is  "  built  upon 
the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets  "  (ii.  20). 
St,  Paul  attaches  a  unique  authority  to  the  apostle- 
*  The  Pauline  Theology,  p.  319  fP. 

u 


210  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

ship,  because  it  owes  its  appointment  to  God  and  its 
call  to  Christ,  without  any  intermediate  human  agency 
(Gal.  i.  1).  In  his  earlier  epistles,  although  there 
are  indefinite  references  to  persons  in  authority  {e.g., 
1  Thess.  V.  12),  no  other  formal  office  appears,  and 
even  the  apostleship  is  not  an  office  within  any  Church, 
but  one  of  general  oversight  and  guidance,  by  instruc- 
tion and  admonition.  Later,  in  his  captivity,  St.  Paul 
recognises  two  orders  of  the  ministry,  "bishops  and 
deacons"  (Phil.  i.  1).  The  Pastoral  Epistles  contain 
careful  directions  concerning  the  characters  of  persons 
who  should  be  appointed,  and  Timothy  and  Titus 
appear  as  visiting  commissioners  in  charge  of  the 
appointment,  but  no  title  is  given  to  them.  Here 
St.  Paul  identifies  the  bishop  with  the  elder  (Titus 
i.  5,  7),  who  is  met  with  in  the  history  of  a  much 
earlier  period  (Acts  xi.  30). 

Although  the  Apcstle  gives  no  common  name,  such 
as  "  sacrament,"  to  the  two  ordinances  of  baptism  and 
the  Lord's  Supper,  on  one  occasion  he  refers  to  them 
together,  as  if  they  possessed  common  characteristics 
(1  Cor.  X.  1-4).  Baptism  is  with  St.  Paul  the  indi- 
cation of  entrance  into  the  Church.  He  writes,  "  In 
one  Spirit  were  we  all  baptised  into  one  body" 
(xii.  13) ;  and  again,  "  As  many  of  you  as  were  baptised 
into  Christ  did  put  on  Christ"  (Gal.  iii.  27).  Yet 
he  cannot  mean  that  the  mere  rite  of  baptism  has 
brought  about  the  tremendous  change  which  he  pre- 
dicates of  all  who  are  in  Christ.  This  would  be  quite 
inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  his  teaching,  which  was 
to  turn  us  away  from  weak  and  beggarly  elements  to 
higher  things — Divine  and  spiritual.     His  treatment 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  211 

of  circmncision  as  a  carnal  ordinance  would  lose  all 
its  force  if  he  substituted  for  it  another  carnal  ordi- 
nance. Moreover,  it  would  be  impossible  to  harmonise 
this  with  his  definite  teaching  of  justification  by  faith. 
His  thankfulness  that  he  only  baptised  two  or  three 
people  (1  Cor.  i.  14,  15)  is  inconceivable  if  he  attached 
to  baptism  the  awful  importance  of  the  one  appointed 
means  of  salvation.  But  as  the  seal  of  confession  it 
testifies  to  the  faith  that  saves.  St.  Paul  expects  faith 
to  issue  in  baptism,  and  he  takes  the  baptism  as  a 
sign  of  loyal  confession.  He  never  refers  to  infant 
baj^tism,  but  he  mentions  the  baptism  of  a  house- 
hold, which  may  have  contained  children  (ver.  16). 
Naturally  the  Churches  to  which  he  wrote  would 
consist  chiefly  of  persons  converted  in  adult  age. 

St.  Paul  approaches  the  subject  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  with  peculiar  reverence.  He  is  careful  to 
point  out  that  the  institution  was  founded  by  Jesus 
Christ  Himself,  and  he  cites  the  full  tradition  of 
its  origin  (xi.  23-5).  From  this  we  may  gather 
that  he  considers  the  ordinance  to  be  primarily  a 
memorial  service ;  for  he  quotes  the  words  "  This  do 
in  remembrance  of  Me,"  and  adds  his  own  remark, 
"  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread  and  drink  the 
cup,  ye  proclaim  the  Lord's  death  till  He  come."  He 
could  not  have  taken  Christ's  words  literally,  so  as 
to  teach  transubstantiation,  because  his  idea  of  the 
resurrection  body,  which  our  Lord  now  possesses,  is 
explicitly  not  that  of  a  body  of  flesh  and  blood. 
Besides,  the  blood  of  Christ  as  His  life  given  for  us  is 
a  familiar  thought  with  St.  Paul.  He  must  therefore 
have  understood  the  elements  to  represent  the  person 


212  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

and  life.  At  the  same  time,  St.  Paul  teaches  that  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  a  communion  (^Koivowia,  x.  16) — 
i.e.,  a  means  of  i-eal  fellowship  with  Christ,  in  con- 
trast with  the  fellowship  with  demons  at  idol-feasts. 
Therefore  the  Christian  is  to  avoid  the  contamination 
of  hrathen  associations,  and  to  keep  the  Lord's  Supper 
clear  of  abuses.  To  fail  to  discern  the  Lord's  body, 
to  miss  Christ  in  the  feast,  is  to  be  guilty  of  wrong 
to  His  very  person. 


VIL    THE    FUTURE 

St.  Paul  agreed  with  his  brethren  of  the  primitive 
Church  in  anticipating  the  second  advent  of  our  Lord. 
The  Parousia  is  more  prominent  in  his  earlier  than 
in  his  later  epistles.  But  although  the  thought 
recedes  it  is  never  abandoned ;  w^e  meet  with  it  as  late 
as  the  epistles  of  the  Captivity  {e.g.,  Phil.  iii.  20 ; 
Col.  iii.  4).  It  seems  to  be  indubitable  that  at  first  St. 
Paul  expected  the  great  event  to  happen  during  his  own 
lifetime.  Thus,  after  referring  to  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead,  he  adds,  "  Then  we  that  are  alive,  that  are 
left,  shall  together  with  them  be  caught  up  in  the 
clouds,  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air  "  (1  Thess.  iv.  17) ; 
and  again,  "  We  shall  not  all  sleep,  but  we  shall  all 
be  changed  ;  .  .  .  the  dead  shall  be  raised  incorruptible, 
and  we  shall  be  changed  "  (1  Cor.  xv.  51,  52).  It 
must  be  remembered  that  the  Apostle  himself  men- 
tioned the  partial  and  imperfect  nature  of  prophecy, 
and  included  his  own  gifts  in  the  limitations,  when  he 
wrote,  "  We  know  in  part,  and  ive  prophesy  in  part " 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  213 

(xiii.  9),  and  "Now  I  know  in  part"  (ver.  12).  He 
never  professed  to  foresee  the  time  of  the  Parousia; 
but  he  knew  it  could  not  be  just  due,  for  he  corrected 
the  mistake  of  the  Thessalonians,  who  were  neglecting 
the  duties  of  daily  life  in  anticipation  of  the  immediate 
end  of  the  present  dispensation,  teaching  that  dark, 
troublous  times  must  intervene  (2  Thess.  ii.  2,  3).  He 
identified  the  second  advent  of  Christ  with  "  the  day 
of  the  Lord  "  so  often  referred  to  in  Hebrew  prophecy. 
It  was  to  be  the  coming  of  Christ  to  judgment. 
St.  Paul  teaches  that  the  judgment  is  to  be  universal. 
Christians  will  not  escape  it,  and  they  will  be  judged 
according  to  their  deeds.  In  this  connection  St.  Paul 
makes  no  reference  to  his  great  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith.  As  far  as  we  can  gather  from  his  writings 
generally,  he  only  uses  that  doctrine  in  his  descriptions 
of  the  method  of  entering  the  Christian  life,  and  so 
disposing  of  the  guilt  of  sin  committed  before  con- 
version. We  must  not  forget  that  his  main  contention 
with  the  Galatians  turned  on  the  folly  of  attempting 
to  reach  perfection  by  the  method  of  law  after  having 
entered  on  the  Christian  life  by  the  new  and  perfect 
way  of  faith.  In  writing  to  the  Corinthians  he  said, 
"  We  walk  by  faith  "  (2  Cor.  v.  7).  Thus  faith  is 
necessary  throughout  the  Christian  life.  Still,  the 
Christian  is  accountable  for  his  conduct.  The  servant 
of  Christ  will  have  to  appear  before  his  Master 
to  be  judged  according  to  his  deeds  (ver.  10).  The 
advent  of  our  Lord  is  followed  by  His  reign.  This 
corresponds  to  the  millennium  of  the  Apocalypse,  but 
St.  Paul  does  not  limit  it  to  a  thousand  years.  It 
will  go  on  as  long  as  it  is  needed  for  the  conquest  of 


214  THE 'THEOLOGY  OF 

all  Christ's  enemies,  a  victory  which  will  be  perfectly 
achieved.  Death  itself  will  be  vanqaished — i.e.,  no 
one  will  die  any  more — and  probably  no  soul  will  any 
longer  be  held  in  thrall  to  death.  When  this  last 
enemy  is  overthrown  the  Messianic  work  of  Christ  will 
be  complete,  His  Kingship  will  come  to  an  end.  He 
will  deliver  up  His  kingdom  to  His  Father,  and  God 
will  be  all  in  all  (1  Cor.  xv.  24-8). 

With  the  second  advent  of  Christ  is  closely  asso- 
ciated the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  In  his  eailier 
writings  St.  Paul  had  referred  to  an  intermediate 
state  of  sleep  {e.g.,  1  Thess.  iv.  14  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  51), 
After  the  riot  at  Ephesus,  as  Prof.  Sabatier  has 
acutely  observed,  he  seems  to  have  abandoned  the 
expectation  of  himself  living  until  the  Parousia ; 
and  thenceforth  he  appears  to  have  anticipated 
passing  on  to  the  resurrection  life  at  death,  the 
spiritual  body  being  ready  when  the  material  body 
is  laid  aside  (2  Cor.  v.  1-10).  Therefore  to  depart 
and  be  with  Christ  is  considered  by  the  Apostle  to 
be  "  very  far  better  "  than  life  on  earth — such  a  life 
as  he  had  while  imprisoned  at  Rome  (Phil.  i.  23). 
St.  Paul  has  no  sympathy  with  the  Greek  thought  of 
the  free,  immortal  soul.  He  would  not  be  "  unclothed." 
Yet  while  he  views  the  subject  from  the  Oriental 
standpoint,  what  he  means  by  the  resurrection  is  a 
return  to  full  active  vitality,  which  he  conceives  to 
be  attained  by  rising  in  a  new  bodily  form ;  and  he 
repudiates  the  gross  Jewish  conception  of  a  recovery 
of  the  animal  organism.  Flesh  and  blood  shall  not 
inherit  the  kmgdom  of  God.  Because  flesh  and 
blood  are  corruptible  things  they  will  be  laid    aside 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  215 

in  favour  of  an  incorruptible  body — a  body  which 
is  as  adapted  to  the  higher  nature  of  man  (Trj/eC/xa) 
as  the  animal  body  was  to  the  lower  nature  (i/'ux^)- 
This  idea  of  a  spiritual  body  (o-io/xa  Tri/ev/xartKoV)  is 
very  significant ;  it  marks  the  Apostle's  inspired  in- 
sight and  progress  beyond  the  impossible  notions  of  his 
contemporaries.  He  does  not  say  whether  the  spiritual 
body  is  constructed  of  anything  material.  He  may 
have  imagined  it  to  be  a  body  of  pure  light,  literally  and 
physically  radiant.  But  probably  he  was  satisfied  with 
the  gt  iieral  idea  of  a  body  suited  to  the  spirit,  and  far 
more  refined  than  the  animal  organism,  without 
knowing  what  it  was  to  be  in  its  essential  nature. 
The  resurrection  thus  described  by  St.  Paul  is  for 
Christians,  for  those  who  Lave  the  gift  of  eternal  life 
in  Christ.  The  Apostle  never  says  anything  about 
a  general  resurrection  of  mankind.  All  his  language 
on  the  subject  is  associated  with  the  idea  of  personal 
relation  to  Christ.  Thus  we  have  not  only  the 
argument  from  silence  against  the  expectation  of  the 
resurrection  of  those  who  are  not  in  Christ,  but 
further,  the  method  and  process  of  the  resurrection 
exclude  them.  Christ  is  the  firstborn  among  many 
brethren.  We  see  "  Christ  the  firstfruits ;  then  they 
that  are  Christ's  at  His  coming"  (1  Cor.  xv.  23). 
According  to  the  earlier  teaching,  "  The  dead  in  Christ 
shall  rise  first ;  then  we  that  are  alive,  that  are 
left,  shall  together  with  them  be  caught  up  in  the 
clouds,  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air  (1  Thess. 
iv.  16,  17).  Here  it  is  manifest  that  the  emphasis 
in  the  first  sentence  is  on  "the  dead,"  not  on  "in 
Christ";   for  the  contrast  is  not  with  those  outside 


216  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

in  Christ,  but  with  the  hving,  "  we  that  are  alive  " ; 
and  all  are  in  Christ,  all  are  to  meet  their  Lord  and 
dwell  with  Him. 

This  idea  of  confining  the  resurrection  to  Christians 
is  quite  in  harmony  with  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul 
about  the  lost.  He  declares  that  "  the  wages  of  sin 
is  death  "  (E,om.  vi.  23).  Knowing  that  he  accepted 
the  Jewish  doctrine  of  the  introduction  of  physical 
death  by  Adam,  we  cannot  doubt  that,  in  the  first 
place,  he  thinks  here  of  that  death.  It  would  seem, 
then,  that  primarily  the  punishment  of  sin  is  what 
we  call  natural  death,  and  that  for  the  lost  this  is 
without  a  resurrection.  We  cannot,  however,  conclude 
that  death  brings  absolute  extinction  of  being  or  the 
total  cessation  of  consciousness.  We  have  seen  that 
it  was  not  affirmed  to  involve  anything  of  the  kind 
in  the  teaching  of  Christ.  From  St.  Paul's  earlier 
epistles  it  might  be  supposed  that,  physically,  the 
state  of  all  the  dead  is  similar,  while  some  are  waiting 
for  the  resurrection  which  others  have  no  right  to 
anticipate.  Since  in  his  riper  meditation  it  is  a 
joyous  prospect  to  contemplate  fellowship  with  Christ 
immediately  after  death,  to  miss  that  fellowship 
and  to  be  excluded  from  the  future  kingdom  must 
be  a  dismal  doom.  St.  Paul  refers  to  the  wrath 
which  an  impenitent  man  treasures  up  for  the  day 
of  wrath  (ii.  5).  He  may  be  tliinking  of  judgment 
on  earth,  but  it  is  more  probable  that  for  most  this 
will  correspond  to  the  day  of  the  Lord,  which  brings 
light  and  gladness  to  those  who  are  in  Jesus.  Still, 
St.  Paul  never  says  that  the  punishment  of  sin  is 
eternal  torment.     He  calls  it  "  corruption  "  ((f>6op(i — 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  217 

"  he  that  soweth  unto  liis  own  flesh  shall  of  the  flesh 
reap  corruption,"  Gal.  vi.  8),  "  destruction  "  (dTroSXeta — 
"  whose  end  is  destruction,"  Phil.  iii.  19),  and  "  death." 
While  death  and  destruction  are  the  natural  con- 
sequences of  sin,  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  brings 
eternal  life  and  its  accompanying  resurrection.  Is 
this  gospel  offered  to  the  dead,  and  have  those  who 
suffered  death  in  their  impenitence  still  an  oppor- 
tunity of  meeting  Christ  in  the  future,  and  so 
obtaining  life  through  Him?  There  is  much  in 
St.  Paul  that  seems  to  indicate  that  glorious  idea, 
though  in  vague  and  general  outline.  Thus  the 
Apostle  writes  of  the  complete  triumph  of  Christ, 
when  the  last  enemy,  death,  is  to  be  abolished 
(1  Cor.  XV.  26).  The  final  triumph  may  be  imagined 
in  two  ways.  All  the  impenitent  may  be  extin- 
guished, put  out  of  being;  and  one  phrase  in  an 
early  epistle  seems  to  point  in  that  direction.  St. 
Paul  writes  of  those  "  w^ho  shall  suffer  punishment, 
even  eternal  destruction  {6X^6  pov  an^viov)  from 
the  face  of  the  Lord,"  etc.  (2  Thess.  i.  9).  But 
this  phrase  is  never  repeated.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  unbounded  exultation  of  the  Apostle  over  the 
perfectly  successful  work  of  Christ  and  its  glorious 
fruits  rather  points  to  another  explanation — viz., 
to  the  view  of  the  final  restoration  of  all.  The 
whole  argument  of  Rom.  v.  goes  to  show  how 
the  domain  of  the  redeeming  work  of  Christ  is  as 
wide  as  that  of  the  ruin  of  sin.  In  the  course  of 
his  argument  the  Apostle  says,  "So  then,  as  through 
one  trespass  the  judgment  came  unto  all  men  to 
condemnation  ;  even  so  through  one  act  of  righteous- 


218  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

ness  the  free  gift  came  unto  all  men  to  justification 
of  life"  (ver.  18).  It  may  be  replied  that  this  only 
refers  to  the  provision  of  salvation  and  the  free  offer 
of  it,  not  to  the  acceptance  and  actual  realisation  of 
it;  still,  the  conclusion  that  '-where  sin  abounded, 
grace  did  abound  more  exceedingly  "  (ver.  20),  seems 
to  indicate  a  success  in  the  gracious  work  of  Christ 
that  is  no  less  than  the  havock  wrought  by  sin.  When, 
in  writing  of  the  resurrection,  the  Apostle  says,  *'  As 
in  Adam  all  die,  so  also  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made 
alive  "  (1  Cor.  xv.  22),  he  seems  to  mean  that  the 
life-giving  work  of  Christ  is  as  extensive  as  the  death 
which  is  the  fate  of  all  mankind.  We  have  seen  that 
he  did  not  teach  a  general  resurrection,  a  resurrection 
for  those  who  are  not  in  Christ,  and  here  it  is  in 
Christ  that  all  are  to  be  made  alive.  Therefore  this 
passage  seems  to  adumbrate  a  future  union  of  all 
with  Christ,  and  their  consequent  enjoyment  of  life 
from  Him. 

THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  EPISTLE  TO 
THE  HEBREWS 

This  anonymous  work  appears  to  have  been 
addressed  to  the  Hebrew  Christians  in  Palestine 
of  the  second  generation,  who,  discouraged  by  the 
failure  of  their  kinsmen  to  accept  Christianity,  the 
disappointment  of  their  hopes  of  Messianic  glory, 
and  the  distresses  and  persecutions  with  which  they 
were  overwhelmed,  were  beginning  to  hanker  after  the 
old  associations  of  Judaism,  doubting  whether,  after 
all,  they  had  not  made  a  mistake  in  exchanging  the 


THE   XEW  TESTAMENT  219 

Synagogue  for  the  Church.  The  writer  both  consoles 
tliem  in  their  present  calamities  and  fortifies  them 
against  the  fascination  of  the  worship  of  their  child- 
hood by  an  elocpient  exposition  of  the  superiority  of 
the  new  covenant  to  the  old,  worked  out  point  by 
point  through  the  most  elaborate  argument  that  is 
to  be  found  in  the  Bible.  The  old  covenant  did  not 
satisfy  the  hopes  it  raised ;  Joshua  did  not  give 
the  Israelites  rest ;  the  priesthood  of  Aaron  and  the 
sacrifices  of  the  tabernacle  did  not  take  away  sin. 
Yet  God's  promises  could  not  fail.  They  must 
therefore  be  fulfilled  in  another  and  more  per- 
fect order,  of  which  the  Levitical  system  was  but 
the  preliminary  adumbration.  This  is  found  in 
Christianity.  The  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  contains 
all  that  the  Jews  had  learned  to  love  in  their  old 
faith,  in  a  better  and  higher  form  ;  contains,  indeed, 
the  reality  and  power  of  what  in  Judaism  was  but 
shadow  and  symbol.  The  author  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  is  evidently  allied  to  St.  Paul  in  the 
fundamental  elements  of  his  gospel — in  the  complete 
abandonment  of  Judaism,  the  lofty  conception  of 
ChrLst,  the  perception  of  the  atoning  efiicacy  of  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ,  the  great  value  attached  to  faith 
as  the  root  of  personal  religion.  But  in  his  form  of 
thought,  in  the  whole  atmosphere  of  his  teaching,  he 
is  far  from  the  methods  of  the  great  Apostle.  While 
St.  Paul  views  Judaism  as  a  law  directing  man's 
strivings  after  justification,  the  author  of  this  Epistle 
thinks  of  it  as  a  cult,  associated  with  the  tabernacle 
worship  in  which  priestly  functions  and  sacrifices  are 
pi-ovided  by  God.     With  the  one  the  law  was  but  an 


220  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

interlude  intended  to  reveal  sin  and  drive  despairing 
souls  to  Christ ;  with  the  other  the  Hebrew  worship 
contained  great  ideas  which  it  did  not  realise,  but 
which  are  realised  in  Christ.  Thus  in  the  former 
aspect  the  law  is  done  away  with  absolutely  by  the 
introduction  of  a  different  and  contradictory  method 
of  justification  ;  but  in  the  latter  the  Old  Testament 
religion  is  fulfilled,  and  it  is  abolished  only  because 
it  is  superseded  by  the  New  Covenant,  which 
accomplishes  the  very  things  the  first  covenant  had 
proposed. 

In  the  execution  of  his  programme  the  author  proves 
himself  to  be  a  student  of  Alexandrian  thought, 
familiar  with  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  and  echoing 
Philo.  Thus,  above  the  visible  world  of  sense  is  the 
invisible,  spiritual  world,  where,  in  quite  Platonic 
fashion,  the  archetypes  of  what  are  most  prized  on 
earth  are  to  be  found ;  the  tabernacle.  Mount  Sion, 
Jerusalem,  the  worship  and  service  of  God,  all  have 
their  higher,  heavenly  counterparts.  Yet  the  writer 
is  not  a  mere  Alexandrian.  He  is  much  nearer  to 
St.  Paul  than  to  the  Hellenist  philosopher.  Philo 
allegorises  the  Old  Testament  in  the  most  artificial 
way,  making  out  its  narratives  to  be  images  of 
wholly  alien  philosophic  ideas.  But  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  the  Old  Testament  is  accepted  as  a 
partial  anticipation  of  Christian  facts  which  are  similar 
in  kind  though  greater  in  attainment  as  befits  the 
region  of  spiritual  realities  to  which  they  belong. 
The  author  attaches  the  highest  possible  value  to 
the  Old  Testament  as  a  record  of  Divine  revelation ; 
and  though  he  invariably  quotes  from  the  LXX.,  he 


THE  XEW  TESTAMENT  221 

attributes  the  words  cited  in  the  most  direct  way  to 
Grod,  ignoring  the  agency  of  the  prophetic  speaker 
or  writer.  Basing  his  argument  on  these  Scriptures, 
he  shows, how  Chiistianity  is  a  covenant  which  super- 
sedes the  Mosaic  covenant.  The  idea  of  the  new 
covenant  is  the  root-thought  of  the  Epistle,  by  relation 
to  which  everything  is  viewed  and  tested.  Evidently 
it  is  derived  from  the  often-mentioned  prophecy  of 
Jeremiah  that  God  would  grant  such  a  covenant 
(Jer.  xxxi.  31).  It  has  the  support  of  the  words  of 
Christ  at  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  "  This 
cup  is  the  new  covenant  in  My  blood"  (1  Cor.  xi.  25). 
The  covenant  here,  as  elsewhere  in  the  Bible,  is  not 
an  agreement  between  two  parties  who  bargain  on 
equal  terms,  but  a  dispensation  originating  in  God 
and  offered  to  man  on  certain  conditions  with  the 
pledge  of  Divine  promises  (not  a  awOyKr],  but  a 
StaOrjKr]).  Thus  it  is  a  sign  of  God's  goodness  to 
men,  a  dispensation  of  grace. 

While  the  idea  of  the  new  covenant  supplies  the 
form  under  which  the  whole  scheme  of  thought  is 
arranged,  the  realisation  of  that  idea  is  shown  to  be 
in  Jesus  Christ,  and  therefore  the  doctrine  of  Christ 
is  the  primary  doctrine  of  the  Epistle.  With  our 
author,  as  with  St.  Paul,  Christianity  is  just  the 
religion  of  Christ.  All  truth  radiates  from  EQm,  and 
is  estimated  by  its  relation  to  Him.  In  describing  the 
person  of  Christ  the  writer  combines  the  very  highest 
conception  of  His  Divinity  with  more  emphatic  and 
touching  traits  of  His  real  humanity  than  are  to  be 
found  anywhere  else  in  the  New  Testament.  The 
Divine   Sonship   is   a  favourite   idea  of  the  Epistle. 


222  THE  THEOLOGY   OF 

The  contrast  between  the  old  covenant  and  the  new 
appears  first  of  all  in  the  difference  between  the 
broken  and  partial  revelation  by  means  of  prophets 
and  the  one  perfect  revelation  in  a  Son  (i.  1,  2). 
Perhaps  it  is  with  an  eye  to  the  undue  exaltation  of 
angels  among  the  Jews  of  his  day  that  the  author 
shows  how  much  Christ,  as  the  Son,  is  higher  than 
the  angels,  who  are  but  ministering  spirits.  Coming 
down  to  the  specific  Israelite  dispensation,  he  con- 
trasts the  Sonship  of  Christ  in  the  house  of  God  with 
the  position  of  Moses,  the  great  founder  of  the  nation, 
who  was  but  a  servant.  Joshua,  though  he  led  Israel 
into  the  promised  land,  could  not  give  the  rest  which 
Christ  gives.  The  whole  Levitical  system,  with  Aaron 
at  its  head,  is  inferior  to  Christianity,  chiefly  because 
of  its  priests'  inferiority  to  Christ.  The  argument  is 
based  on  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  and  mostly 
on  passages  drawn  from  Messianic  Psalms ;  but  so 
convinced  is  the  author  of  the  true  Divinity  of  Jesus 
Christ,  he  doFS  not  hesitate  to  apply  to  Him  words 
which  were  plainly  written  in  the  first  place  of  God. 
Thus  he  quotes  the  verses  beginning,  "  Thou,  Lord,  in 
the  beginning  hast  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth," 
and  assigns  them  to  the  Son  of  God  (ver.  10).  He  has 
no  difficulty  in  using  the  word  Lord  (KvpLos)  indis- 
criminately for  God  and  for  Christ.  Then  the  Son 
is  heir  of  all  things,  and  the  Mediator  of  creation — 
"  through  whom  also  He  made  the  worlds "  (ver.  2). 
These  two  passages  plainly  imply  pre-existence. 
They  are  not  contradicted  by  the  phrase  "  this  day 
have  I  begotten  Thee  "  (ver.  5),  because,  even  if  that 
referred  to  the  human  birth  or  the  baptism  of  our 


THE   XEW   TESTAMENT  223 

Lord,  it  would  not  exclude  previous  existence  in 
another  sphere — in  the  latter  case  previous  existence 
on  earth  is  taken  for  granted.  But  we  are  not  driven 
to  this  interpretation.  In  quoting  Psalm  ii.  the 
writer  does  not  accentuate  every  word  he  takes  over, 
and  he  may  not  have  the  significance  of  this  phrase 
in  mind,  or  he  may  interpret  it  in  relation  to 
the  eternal  day  of  God's  thought.  At  all  events, 
Beyschlag's  attempt  to  show  that  the  pre-existence 
ascribed  to  Christ  in  the  Epistle  is  ideal  does  violence 
to  the  text.  He  says  that  the  author  "  in  the  naive 
way  of  Biblical  realism  has  personified  the  Logos."  * 
How  so  ?  The  author  is  not  writing  about  the 
Logos,  but  about  the  Son.  There  is  not  a  shadow  of 
an  indication  that  he  confuses  the  personifying  of  an 
idea  with  the  idea  of  a  person.  The  crisp,  definite 
thought  of  the  Son  is  maintained  throughout.  In 
one  passage,  if  we  are  to  read  it  in  the  only  way  the 
Greek  permits — whatever  may  have  been  the  original 
meaning  of  the  Hebrew — the  writer  carries  over  a 
direct  address  to  God,  and  applies  it  to  Christ,  quoting 
the  words,  "  Thy  throne,  0  God,  is  for  ever  and 
ever"  (ver.  8). 

In  his  relation  to  the  Father  the  Son  takes  a 
secondary  place.  It  is  God  who  appointed  Him  heii' 
of  all  things  (ver.  2),  called  Him  to  His  own  right  hand 
(ver.  13),  subjected  all  things  to  Him  (ii.  8),  raised 
Him  from  the  dead  (xiii.  20).  He  is  the  most  exact 
revelation  of  God  to  us,  as  the  sun's  rays  (d7ravyao-/xa) 
are  of  the  sun,  as  the  effigy  on  the  seal  {xapaKrrji))  is 
of  its  original  (i.  3). 

*  ^'evt.  Theol.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  30''. 


224  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

The  humanity  of  Christ  is  described  with  unwonted 
fulness  and  force.  He  was  made  for  a  time  "  lower 
than  the  angels "  (ii.  9).  Thus  He  became  a  true 
and  complete  man  subject  to  human  suffering, 
"  who  in  the  days  of  His  liesh  having  offered  up 
prayers  and  supplications  with  strong  crying  and 
tears  unto  Him  that  was  able  to  save  Him  from 
death,  and  having  been  heard  for  His  godly  fear, 
though  He  was  a  Son,  yet  learned  obedience  by  the 
things  which  He  suffered"  (v.  7,  8).  These  suffer- 
ings were  in  part  for  His  own  needs.  They  were  the 
means  by  which  as  a  man  He  was  ''made  perfect" 
(rcXeicD^ei's,  ver.  9).  In  one  thing  only  He  differed 
from  us :  He  was  sinless.  He  was  tempted,  but 
without  sin  (x^pts  a/xaprta?) — without  any  contact 
with  sin,  either  as  the  preliminary  prompting  of  evil 
desire,  or  as  the  final  issue  of  the  consenting  will 
(iv.  15).  His  incarnation  was  essential  to  His 
priestly  work  on  behalf  of  men  for  two  great  purposes 
— firsts  that  He  might  be  their  representative  before 
God  (ii.  17),  and,  second,  that  He  might  succour  them 
in  their  trials  by  means  of  His  sympathy  and  close 
union  with  them  (ver.  18). 

The  doctrine  of  the  high-priesthood  of  Christ, 
although  in  harmony  with  scattered  hints  elsewhere, 
is  in  its  fulness  and  explicit  exposition  peculiar  to  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  The  author's  comparison 
between  the  two  covenants  naturally  leads  him  to 
consider  the  sacerdotal  ofiice  which  was  so  prominent 
in  the  earlier  one.  This  he  finds  far  more  perfectly 
realised  in  our  Lord  than  in  the  family  of  Aaron. 
He  begins  by  affirming  of  Christ  two  essential  notes 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  225 

of  priesthood.  First,  the  priest  must  be  a  man.  This 
idea  is  dwelt  on  most  earnestly.  The  author  seems 
to  think  that  human  sympathies  are  quite  essential 
to  true  priestliness.  The  priest's  very  infirmities  help 
him,  because  he  is  the  best  priest  who  is  the  most 
sympathising  brother.  This  idea  we  see  perfectly 
realised  in  Christ  (iv.  14 — v.  2).  Then  the  priest 
must  be  appointed  by  God.  The  self-made  priest  is 
no  real  priest.  But  as  Aaion  was  divinely  appointed, 
so  also  is  Christ,  in  evidence  of  which  fact  the  author 
quotes  from  Psalms  ii.  and  ex.  (v.  5,  6).  Having 
thus  affirmed  the  reality  of  Christ's  priesthood,  and 
in  this  respect  its  resemblance  to  that  of  Aaron,  he 
proceeds  to  point  out  the  differences  between  the 
two.  Now  Christ's  priesthood  is  compared  with 
that  of  Melchizedek,  King  of  Salem,  whose  historical 
features  are  almost  lost  sight  of  in  his  typical 
character.  The  argument  is  based  on  Psalm  ex.  com- 
bined with  allusions  to  the  history  in  Genesis  and 
to  facts  in  the  life  and  death  of  Christ.  These  data 
give  rise  to  the  following  conclusions  that  go  to  show 
the  superiority  of  the  priesthood  of  Christ  to  that  of 
Aaron  : — (1)  The  Levitical  high-priesthood  was  held  in 
succession  by  a  series  of  mortal  men ;  Christ  is  the  one 
High-priest  abiding  for  ever.  (2)  Abraham  doing 
homage  to  Melchizedek  is  a  sign  that  the  priesthood 
of  his  descendants  is  inferior  to  that  of  the  King  of 
Salem ;  Christ,  who  is  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek, 
takes  the  higher  rank  of  one  who  receives  this 
homage.  (3)  Aaron  and  his  sons,  being  sinful,  needed 
to  offer  for  themselves  before  they  could  atone  for 
their  brethren  ;  Christ,  being  sinless,  had  no  occasion 

15 


226  TBE  THEOLOGY  OF 

to  sacrifice  for  Himself.  (4)  The  Levitical  sacrifices 
were  of  animals  whose  blood  and  ashes  could  never 
really  take  away  sin  ;  Christ  offered  Himself  as  a  true 
sacrifice.  (5)  All  the  Levitical  ofiices  were  performed 
on  earth,  in  connection  with  a  material  tabernacle, 
and  therefore  they  could  not  affect  higher  relations ; 
Christ  entered  the  heavens,  and  carried  the  atonement 
into  the  highest  regions,  thus  achieving  spiritually  what 
earthly  high-priests  could  only  attempt  materially. 

The  great  priestly  work  is  the  offering  of  a  sacrifice, 
and  Christ  realises  His  priesthood  in  the  sacrifice  of 
Himself.  This  never  appears  as  the  propitiation 
of  Divine  wrath.  It  is  viewed  in  a  twofold  relation 
— as  a  purification  from  sin,  and  as  a  ratification 
of  the  new  covenant.  The  two  effects  are  in  no 
way  contradictory.  They  run  parallel.  Nay,  they 
help  one  another  in  together  defeating  the  power 
of  Satan,  It  was  sin  that  broke  the  first  covenant. 
The  new  covenant  can  only  be  held  good  when  sin 
is  purged  away  (ix.  15).  Pfleiderer  ascribed  an 
entirely  external  character  to  the  author's  doctrine 
of  redemption,  holding  that  it  meant  no  more  than 
deliverance  from  the  guilt  of  sin.  That  it  includes 
this  deliverance  cannot  be  denied.  The  cleansing 
of  "  the  conscience "  {(rwd^yjcnv)  seems  to  point  to 
such  a  result.  But  we  cannot  stay  here.  The  writer 
asks  if  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  is  not  to  "  cleanse  your 
conscience  from  dead  works,  to  serve  the  living  God." 
(ver.  14).  The  latter  part  of  this  phrase  is  as  truly 
connected   with    the    sacrifice   as   the   earlier   part.* 

*  Pfleiderer  admitted  the  force  of  this  in  his  later  work, 
m^liristenthum,  p.  636, 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  227 

Moreover,  as  Beyschlag  points  out,  the  idea  of 
sanctification  which  our  author  associates  with  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ  is  never  taken  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  a  merely  external  manner ;  it  always  includes 
that  change  of  character  which  makes  consecration  to 
God  a  reality  and  not  an  empty  form,  that  holiness 
without  which  it  is  impossible  to  see  God  f 

In  his  interpretation  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  the 
author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  comes  nearer 
to  a  theory  of  the  atonement  than  any  other  New 
Testament  writer.  He  evidently  connects  this  with 
the  death  of  Christ,  the  shedding  of  whose  blood 
is  compared  to  that  of  the  victim  at  the  altar.  He 
also  alludes  to  the  rites  on  the  day  of  atonement. 
Christ  was  offered  to  "  bear  the  sins  of  many " 
(ver.  28),  reminding  us  of  the  scapegoat  over  the 
head  of  which  the  people's  sins  were  confessed,  so 
that  it  might  carry  them  away  to  the  demon  in 
the  wilderness.  This  approaches  St.  Paul's  daring 
conception  of  our  Lord  being  "  made  sin  for  us."  The 
efficacy  of  Christ's  sacrifice  is  not  sought  in  this 
direction,  however ;  it  is  looked  for  in  the  spirit  with 
which  He  suffered.  Animal  sacrifices  could  not  atone 
for  sin,  because  they  could  not  really  please  God. 
All  that  God  delights  in  is  an  obedient  will.  Accord- 
ingly a  body  was  prepared  for  Christ — i.e.,  He  became 
incarnate  in  order  that  He  might  come  into  the 
sphere  of  human  obedience.  He  said,  "  Lo,  I  am 
come  to  do  Thy  will ;  ...  by  w^iich  will  we  have 
been  sanctified  through  the  ofiering  of  the  body  of 
Jesus  Christ  once  for  all  "  (x.  9,  10).  His  obedience 
t  Neut.  TheoL,  vol.  11.,  p.  317 


228  THE   THEOLOGY   OF 

in  death  was  accepted  by  God  as  that  most  perfect 
surrender  wliich  is  the  very  essence  of  sacrifice.  He 
obeyed  as  a  man,  and  His  human  sacrifice  furnished 
the  ground  for  passing  over  the  sin  of  mankind  in 
gracious  forgiveness.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  the 
most  potent  influence  for  consecrating  and  purifying 
all  who  follow  Christ.  We  cannot  dissociate  these 
two  results.  In  the  Epistle  they  are  inextricably 
mingled.  God  pardons  in  Christ  a  people  who  are 
to  be  made  holy  by  Christ. 

On  the  human  side  faith  appears  as  the  secret  of 
all  that  is  good  and  great.  Unlike  St.  Paul,  the 
author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  regards  faith 
mainly  as  a  spring  of  action,  as  the  confidence  in 
God  which  inspires  heroism.  The  disheartening  spirit 
which,  by  failing  in  faith  and  sinking  back  into 
despair,  threatens  to  abandon  the  Christian  course 
is  severely  reprobated.  For  those  who  yield  to  this 
tendency  there  is  practically  no  hope  of  recovery; 
they  have  renounced  the  one  saving  means  of  grace. 
But  for  the  loyal  and  patient  there  is  the  prospect 
of  rest  in  the  city  of  God  (iv.  9  ;  xiii.  14). 


THE     JOHANNINE     TYPE 

I.    THE  APOCALYPSE 

Whatever  line  of  interpretation  we  follow,  or 
even  if  we  hold  that  the  key  by  means  of  which 
the  secret  of  the  elaborate  symbolism  of  this  book 
may  be  unlocked  has  not  yet  been  found,  one  great 
idea    flames    out    of    the    whole    work    and    burns 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  229 

itself  into  our  imagination  as  we  read  the  glowing 
pages.  Clothed  in  the  pageantry  of  Oriental  imagery, 
which  is  alternately  sombre  and  gorgeous,  the  domi- 
nant thought  of  the  book  is  '*  God  in  history,"  God 
present  in  the  midst  of  the  moving  drama  of  events, 
God  actively  directing  the  course  of  the  tortuous 
current  towards  the  grand  consummation.  The 
picture  is  painted  on  the  largest  possible  canvas.  The 
subject  is  not  the  salvation  or  ruin  of  tl;e  individual, 
but  the  judgment  and  final  renewal  of  the  world. 
God  is  here  seen  as  "  King  of  kings."  The  first  lesson 
taught  is  that  He  is  profoundly  and  very  practically 
concerned  with  the  history  of  mankind.  That  history 
is  seen  to  be  a  dreadful  conflict.  It  does  not  move  on 
as  a  smooth  process  of  evolution.  There  is  blood,  and 
fire,  and  fury  in  it.  At  present  the  evil  seems  to  be 
dominant,  and  the  ruling  spirit  Satan,  the  great  red 
dragon.  Therefore  God  must  first  come  to  judgment, 
and  many  woes  are  depicted  in  His  train.  But  the 
prophecy  is  not  pessimistic.  After  the  overthrow  of 
the  evil,  God  will  establish  a  new  heaven  and  a  new 
earth.  The  near  future  may  be  dark  and  threatening ; 
beyond  it  lies  the  final  future,  bathed  in  the  celestial 
radiance  of  unspeakable  bliss.  Thus  the  book  is  an 
allegorical  picture  of  the  great  conflict  in  which  the 
powers  of  evil  and  their  earthly  agents,  bad  men? 
especially  bad  ruling  powers,  will  be  judged  and 
overthrown  ;  so  that,  after  all  the  toil,  and  strife, 
and  agony  of  the  process,  in  the  end,  while  God  is 
triumjDhant,  His  suffering  servants  will  enter  into  a 
new  era  of  peace  and  bh  ssedness,  an  era  of  purity 
and  perfection  for  the  whole  renovated  world. 


230  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

The  work  being  concerned  more  with  the  social 
and  historical  region  than  with  the  internal  and 
spiritual,  the  doctrines  that  affect  personal  religion 
are  necessarily  not  prominent,  and  the  more  purely 
theological  ideas  only  emerge  casually  and  indirectly. 
It  is  not  designed  to  teach  theology,  but  to  apply  it 
to  the  destiny  of  mankind.  The  supreme  right  of 
God  exercised  in  the  government  of  the  world  is  the 
dominant  thought.  He  is  emphatically  the  living, 
the  eternal  Creator  and  Sovereign.  He  appears  on 
His  throne  (iv.  2,  etc.),  reigning,  ruling,  regulating 
all  things.  Next  we  see  Jesus  Christ  highly  exalted 
as  the  Leader  of  the  Divine  movement  of  history. 
He  is  the  risen,  glorified  Christ.  Both  His  humanity 
and  His  Divinity  are  apparent.  The  simple  name 
"  Jesus "  is  repeatedly  used  with  great  significance 
to  point  back  to  the  life  of  our  Lord  on  earth,  and 
to  remind  us  of  the  identity  of  personality  persistent 
still  in  the  state  of  exaltation  (e.^.,  xvii.  6;  xxii.  16). 
The  description  of  Him  as  One  ''  like  a  Son  of  man  " 
(i.  13-16)  does  not  directly  assert  His  real  humanity, 
and  might  even  be  read  in  a  Docetic  sense;  but  it  is 
plainly  an  allusion  to  the  vision  in  Daniel  (vii,  13),  and 
must  be  taken  therefore  as  symbolical  of  our  Lord's 
humane  gentleness  and  superiority  to  the  prevalent 
world  powers  that  are  represented  by  ferocious  brute 
beasts.  His  human  relationship,  however,  is  dis- 
tinctly asserted :  He  is  "  the  Lion  of  the  tribe  of 
Judah  "  (Rev.  v.  5),  and  both  "  the  root  and  the  off- 
spring of  David  "  (xxii.  16).  But  the  greatest  emphasis 
is  laid  on  His  Divine  nature.  Peculiar  titles  attributed 
to  God  are  also  ascribed  to  Christ.     Thus,  after  read- 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT  231 

ing  "  I  am  the  Alpha  and  the  Omega,  saith  the  Lord 
God,  which  is  and  which  was  and  which  is  to  come, 
the  Almighty"  (i.  8),  we  find  our  Lord  describing 
Himself  as  "the  first  and  the  last"  (ver.  18;  ii.  8), 
and  sa}'ing,  "  I  am  the  Alpha  and  the  Omega,  the  first 
and  the  last,  the  beginning  and  the  end"  (xxii.  13). 
He  has  "the  keys  of  death  and  of  Hades"  (i.  18) — 
i.e.,  a  right  to  determine  both  who  shall  die,  and  who 
shall  be  raised  again  from  the  dead.  In  His  exaltation 
He  has  a  new  name  given  Him,  the  full  import 
of  which  He  alone  understands.  This  is  no  other 
than  the  name  which  reappears  in  the  prologue  of  the 
fourth  Gospel—"  The  Word  of  God  "  (6  Aoyos  tov  ©eov, 
xix.  13),  although  we  may  observe  a  difference  of  usage 
in  that,  while  here  it  comes  before  us  as  a  title 
assigned  to  Christ  after  His  exaltation  in  reward  for 
His  fidelity,  in  the  Gospel  it  describes  His  eternal 
pre-existence.  With  these  statements  before  us  we 
cannot  take  the  phrase  "  the  beginning  of  the  creation 
of  God  "  (t;  ap;^^  t^s  KTtVeo)?  tov  ©eoi),  iii.  14)  to  mean 
that  Christ  was  Himself  a  creature.  The  interpreta- 
tion "principle  of  creation"  will  not  hold,  as  the 
Greek  word  (dpx^)  ^^  associated  with  the  word  that 
means  "  end "  (tcA-os),  and  therefore  must  signify 
"beginning"  (xxii.  13).  But  this  very  association 
separates  its  subject  from  the  contents  of  creation. 
He  who  is  both  the  beginning  and  the  end  can  only  be 
the  beginning  in  the  sense  that  what  reaches  its  con- 
summation in  Him  is  also  founded  in  Him,  and  the 
thought  must  be  connected  with  the  Logos  doctrine. 
Here  we  see  clearly  the  idea  of  the  personal  pre- 
existence  of  Christ,  as  well  as  that  of  His  relation 


232  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

to  creation.  At  the  same  time,  even  in  this  book, 
which  so  highly  exalts  His  glory,  that  subordination 
to  the  Father  which  is  apparent  elsewhere  throughout 
the  New  Testament  is  not  forgotten.  The  very  open- 
ing words  of  the  introduction  speak  of  "  the  revelation 
of  Jesus  Christ  which  God  gave  Him  "  (i.  1),  and  God 
is  called  "  His  God  and  Father"  (ver.  6). 

With  reference  to  the  work  of  Christ,  His  prophetic 
office  is  referred  to  when  He  is  described  as  "  the 
faithful  witness "  (i.  5 ;  iii.  14),  but  His  redeeming 
death  is  more  fully  dwelt  upon.  His  saving  work  is 
regarded  chiefly  as  an  act  of  redemption.  It  con- 
sists primarily  in  deliverance  from  sin — He  "  loosed 
us  from  our  sins  "  (i.  5).  It  also  results  in  restora- 
tion to  God — "  He  made  us  to  be  a  kingdom,  to 
be  priests  unto  His  God  and  Father "  (ver.  6).  In 
the  song  of  the  redeemed  they  declare  themselves 
to  be  purchased  unto  God  (v.  9).  This  salvation  is 
effected  by  means  of  the  death  of  Christ — He  is 
worthy  who  "was  slain";  He  purchased  His  people 
by  "  His  blood "  [ibid.).  With  this  subject  we 
must  associate  the  peculiar  name  given  to  Christ. 
He  is  the  Lamb  (apvtov).*  Whether  St.  John  is 
here  alluding  to  the  passover  lamb ;  or  whether  the 
origin  of  the  title  is  to  be  sought  in  that  favourite 
passage  with  the  early  Christians,  Isa.  liii. ;  or 
whether,  as  is  likely  enough,  both  thoughts  are  in 
mind,  perhaps  because  already  combined  in  popular 
Christian  teaching,  it  is  clear  that  the  Lamb  is 
regarded  sacrificially.     The  Lamb  has  been  slain,  and 

*  In  the  fourth  Gospel  St.  John   uses  another  name  for 
Lamb  {d/xvos'). 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  233 

among  Jews  a  slain  lamb  would  certainly  suggest  a 
sacrifice.  Further  we  can  scarcely  go.  How  the 
blood  of  the  Lamb — i.e.,  how  the  oftering  of  Jesus 
Christ  to  God  in  death — can  effect  our  redemption  is 
a  mystery  left  unexplained. 

Our  Lord's  resurrection  is  clearly  taught.  He  was 
dead,  but  He  is  alive  for  evermore.  He  is  now 
emphatically  "  The  Living  One  "  (i.  18).  He  brings 
His  grace  to  men  by  coming  Himself  into  their 
hearts.  He  stands  at  the  door  and  knocks,  prepared 
to  enter,  and  sup  even  A\ith  lukewarm  Laodiceans  if 
they  will  but  receive  Him  (iii.  20).  He  is  to  come 
in  power  and  glory  for  the  overthrow  of  evil  and 
the  establishment  of  His  kingdom.  This  doctrine 
of  the  Second  Advent,  often  emerging  in  other 
New  Testament  ^vi'itings,  finds  its  fullest  exposition 
in  the  Apocalypse.  No  date  is  given.  Christ  will 
come  "  as  a  thief "  (ver.  3).  Perhaps  more  than 
one  return  is  thought  of.  The  judgment  of  a  guilty 
Church  may  not  be  contemporaneous  with  that  of 
the  world,  as  the  judgment  of  Jerusalem  is  not  witli 
that  of  Rome.  The  coming  of  Christ  is  associated 
with  a  first  resurrection,  that  of  the  martyrs,  to 
be  followed  by  a  reign  of  a  thousand  years,  after 
which  a  fresh  outbreak  of  evil  precedes  the  final 
victory. 

According  to  Baur  and  his  school,  the  Apocalj^se 
is  acutely  anti-Pauline.  But  there  is  not  a  particle 
of  evidence  for  the  monstrous  notions  that  the  "  evil 
men,"  ''  which  call  themselves  apostles,  and  they  are 
not "  (ii.  2),  are  St.  Paul  and  his  companions ;  the 
Nicolaitans  with  their  hateful  works  (ver.  6),  St.  Paul's 


234  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

converts ;  and  the  "  synagogue  of  Satan  "  (ver.  9),  a 
Pauline  Church  !  Still,  the  book  wears  a  Jewish 
garb  {e.g.,  xi.),  and  often  breathes  a  Jewish  spirit. 
The  temper  attributed  to  the  martyrs  reminds  us  of 
the  Maledictory  Psalms,  rather  than  of  the  teachings 
of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (vi.  10).  The  objection 
of  the  primitive  Jewish  Christians  to  eat  meat  offered 
to  idols  is  here  sanctioned,  although  it  was  not  shared 
by  St.  Paul  (ii.  14).  But  the  association  of  this  with 
fornication  recalls  the  decree  of  the  Jerusalem  Church 
(Acts  XV.  29) ;  and  St.  John  evidently  stands  with 
the  Judsean  Christians  in  this  matter.  He  does  not 
echo  the  narrow  doctrines  of  the  extreme  party  of 
St.  J"ames.  Besides  the  redeemed  Israelites  there  is 
"  a  great  multitude,  which  no  man  could  number,  out 
of  every  nation,  and  of  all  tribes  and  peoples  and 
tongues,"  in  white  robes,  attributing  their  salvation 
to  God  ("  our  God,"  they  say)  and  the  Lamb  (Bev.  vii. 
9,  10).  The  leaves  of  the  tree  of  life  are  "  for  the  heal- 
ing of  the  nations  "  (xxii.  2).  He  that  will  is  invited  to 
take  the  water  of  life  freely  (ver.  17).  Judgment  is 
to  be  according  to  works  (ii.  23  ;  iii.  2).  But  this  is 
also  taught  by  St.  Paul ;  and  although  the  Apocalypse 
does  not  refer  to  justification  by  faith,  it  appeals  to 
"the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus"  (xxii.  21).  There  is 
not  a  word  in  commendation  of  the  Jewish  ritual. 
No  temple  is  to  be  found  in  the  New  Jerusalem. 

t 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  235 


11.    THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  EPISTLES 

Seeing  that  the  four  Gospels  were  all  written  later 
than  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  they  may  be  considered  to 
belong  to  the  third  period  of  New  Testament  teaching. 
The  writers  of  the  Synoptics,  however,  have  so  per-^ 
sistently  suppressed  their  own  individuality  in  bending 
themselves  to  the  great  task  of  painting  the  portrait 
of  their  Master  that,  while  we  resort  to  the  three 
first  Gospels  for  the  words  of  Jesus  and  the  facts  of 
His  life,  we  cannot  look  to  them  for  that  interpreta- 
tion of  ideas  which  is  known  as  theology.  This  is 
their  crowning  merit.  The  facts  themselves  are  of 
such  profound  significance  that  the  simple  record  of 
them,  interwoven  as  it  is  with  the  sayings  of  Christ, 
constitutes  the  most  vital  part  of  the  New  Testament. 
Here  we  learn  what  the  historical  Jesus  was.  Two/ 
of  the  Gospels  (Matthew  and  Luke)  inform  us  of 
His  supernatural  birth  from  the  Yii-gin  Mary;  they 
all  give  graphic  accounts  of  His  teaching  and  miracle- 
working,  devoting  great  attention  to  the  last  scenes, 
and  thus  accentuating  the  significance  of  His  death, 
and  bearmg  emphatic  witness  to  His  resurrection. 
These  are  the  root  facts  out  of  which  Christian  theo- 
logy has  sprung.  To  some  extent,  indeed,  personal 
ideas  and  aims  may  be  detected  in  the  Synoptic  writers. 
Thus,  while  St.  Mark  is  content  to  set  down  his 
rugged  narrative  of  the  wonderful  life  with  scarcely  a 
comment,  St.  Matthew  reveals  himself  as  the  Jewish 
Christian,  delighting  in  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy 
after  the   manner  of    St.    Peter ;    and   St.    Luke   is 


236  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

Pauline,  glowing  with  the  universalism  illustrated  in 
the  grace  of  God  bestowed  on  the  poor,  the  sinful,  and 
the  heathen.  But  these  traits  only  emerge  casually. 
With  the  fourth  Evangelist  the  case  is  very  different. 
St.  John,  as  we  have  seen,*  does  not  hesitate  to  insert 
his  own  reflections  in  the  course  of  his  narrative,  and 
that  with  considerable  freedom.  Therefore  we  can 
study  his  theology  in  his  Gospel  as  well  as  in  his 
Epistles. 

The  fundamental  agreement  between  the  represen- 
tation of  our  Lord's  teaching  in  the  fourth  Gospel  and 
that  in  the  Synoptics,  to  which  attention  was  directed 
in  an  earlier  part  of  this  book,t  vastly  simplifies 
the  study  of  Johannine  theology.  That  study  has 
generally  consisted  for  the  most  part  in  an  examina- 
tion of  the  discourses  ascribed  to  our  Lord  in  St. 
John's  narrative.  These,  however,  have  been  already 
looked  at  in  their  right  place  among  the  teachings 
of  Christ.  They  only  touch  Johannine  theology 
indirectly  by  throwing  light  on  the  mind  of  the  one 
disciple,  who,  as  far  as  we  know,  was  alone  capable  of 
absorbing  and  reproducing  them,  and  who  seems  to 
have  translated  them  into  his  own  style  of  thought 
and  language.  It  is  in  his  independent  statements 
that  we  must  find  the  ideas  which  can  be  ascribed 
immediately  to  the  inspired  thinking  of  St.  John 
himself. 

It   has  been  common  to  call  the  theology  of    St. 

John  mystical,  a  true  characterisation  of  its  spirit,  but 

not  of  its  method.     As  it  has  often  been  remarked, 

St.   John  is  contemplative  rather  than   speculative. 

*  Pages  15,  16.  f  See  page  38. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  237 

His  mind  instinctively  broods  over  the  deepest  truths 
of  the  spiritual  life,  or  soars  \vitli  delight  into  the 
highest  regions  of  Divine  existence,  and  in  all  his 
meditation  he  seizes  ideas  in  their  antithetical  positive 
and  negative  relations  without  toiling  through  a 
tedious  process  of  syllogistic  i-easoning.  But  there  is 
one  point  at  which  he  breaks  with  the  mystic.  He 
does  not  derive  his  knowledge  of  God  from  intuition, 
but  finds  it  in  the  historical  facts  of  the  earthly  life 
of  Jesus  Christ.  He  even  denies  the  existence  of  any 
immediate  knowledge  of  God,  and  asserts  that  the  only 
way  in  which  God  can  be  known  is  by  means  of  the 
revelation  of  Christ  (John  i.  18),  through  that  incar- 
nate Word  of  which  he  and  his  companions  have  had 
occular,  sensible  experience — "that  which  we  have 
heard,  that  which  we  have  seen  with  our  eyes,  that 
which  we  beheld,  and  our  hands  handled,  concern- 
ing the  Word  of  life  (and  the  life  was  manifested,  and 
we  have  seen,  and  bear  witness),"  etc.  (1  John  i.  1,  2). 
This  is  the  direct  contradiction  of  the  mystical  method. 
Nevertheless,  it  arrives  at  richer  residts  of  Divine 
knowledge  than  any  acquired  by  the  process  of 
subjective  intuition.  The  man  who  knew  Jesus  Christ 
best  on  earth,  and  who  confessed  that  he  had  obtained 
his  knowledge  of  the  Father  from  the  Son,  has  given 
us  our  highest  and  clearest  ideas  of  God.  Seeing  the 
Father  in  the  Son,  St.  John  perceives  that  the  very 
being  of  God  is  light- — i.e.,  true  goodness  (1  John  i.  5) ; 
love  (iv.  8);  and  life  (John  v.  26).  These  three 
Johannine  attributes  of  God  blend  and  interact ;  but 
the  central  one  is  that  on  which  the  Apostle  lays  the 
greatest  stress.    God  is  love  essentially  by  nature.    All 


238  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

the  action  of  God  in  redemption  is  traced  back  to  the 
infinite  fountains  of  Divine  love.  And  this  is  not  an 
intuitional  truth,  or  a  deduction  from  reflection  upon 
the  writer's  own  nature  as  the  Apostle  of  love,  which 
it  might  be  if  it  were  only  got  in  subjective  medita- 
tion. It  is  a  result  of  the  objective  revelation  in  the 
person  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  a  transcription  of  the 
character  of  our  Lord  by  His  most  intimate  disciple, 
and  an  unhesitating  ascription  of  it  to  God. 
^  The  theology  of  St.  John,  then,  is  emphatically 
Christo-centric.  The  person  and  life  of  our  Lord 
constitute  the  heart  and  root  and  source  of  all  the 
Johannine  religious  ideas.  The  Apostle  declares  that 
the  object  with  which  he  wrote  his  Gospel  was  that 
his  readers  might  "  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  God,"  and  so  might  *'  have  life  in  His 
name "  (John  xx.  31).  In  1  John  the  supreme 
requisite  is  to  believe  in  the  name  of  God's  Son  Jesus 
Christ  (1  John  iv.  2,  3),  to  confess  the  Son  (ii.  23), 
etc.  The  Messiahship  of  Jesus  is  prominent  through- 
out. The  universalism  of  the  Apostle  never  blinds 
him  to  the  Jewish  form  of  the  Christian  revelation. 

In  writing  of  the  person  of  our  Loi-d,  St.  John 
brings  the  truths  concerning  His  Divine  nature  into 
the  greatest  prominence.  It  is  in  the  fourth  Gospel 
that  we  have  the  fullest  presentation  of  the  Divinity 
of  Christ  anywhere  to  be  found  in  the  Bible.  The 
Evangelist's  version  of  our  Lord's  own  words  is  evi- 
dently determined  with  a  special  view  to  this  end ; 
for  he  has  selected  those  utterances  that  bring  out 
the  higher  nature  of  Christ  and  recast  them  so  as 
to  form  a  unique  portrait  of  the  incarnate  Son  of 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  239 

God.     His  own  comments  and  direct  statements  on 
this  subject  are  most  distinct  and  emphatic. 

First,  we  have  St.  John's  description  of  the  J-ogos 
(6  Xoyoq),  i.e.,  the  Word,  in  the  introduction  to  his 
Gospel.  This  is  a  peculiarly  Johannine  thought. 
St.  John  never  represents  our  Lord  to  have  called  Him- 
self the  Word.  Yet  he  introduces  the  name  abruptly, 
on  the  evident  assumption  that  it  is  familiar  to  his 
readers.  Since  the  very  same  title  was  in  use 
among  the  Alexandrian  Jews  for  the  Divine  mind 
as  the  Mediator  of  creation,  it  is  most  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  the  Evangelist,  or  perhaps  some  other 
thinkers  before  him,  took  it  over  into  Christian 
teaching  and  applied  it  to  Jesus  Chi-ist.  But  though 
the  title  seems  to  have  come  from  Hellenic  sources, 
the  ideas  attached  to  it  were  not  borrowed  from  the 
same  region,  for  St.  John's  Logos  is  very  different  from 
the  Logos  of  Philo.  They  may  be  contrasted  in  four 
important  particulars.  Philo's  Logos  is  (1)  ''reason," 
rather  than  "  Word  "  ;  (2)  really  impersonal,  though 
allegorically  personified ;  (3)  not  to  be  thought  of  as 
incarnate ;  (4)  never  identified  with  the  Messiah. 
But  St.  John's  Logos  is  (1)  the  "Word,"  as  the  con- 
text proves;  (2)  a  Person;  (3)  incarnate;  (•!:)  identified 
with  the  Messiah.  The  thoughts  which  lie  behind  the 
title  are  rather  those  of  the  creative  word  of  Genesis, 
the  revealing  "word  of  the  Lord"  in  prophecy,  and  the 
sacred  "  name  of  the  Lord  "  so  frequently  mentioned 
in  the  Old  Testament.  Using  the  Alexandrian  term, 
and  reading  into  it  Old  Testament  ideas,  perhaps  with 
associations  gathered  from  later  Palestinian  Judaism, 
St.  John  calmly  identifies  the  awful  Word  of  God 


240  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

with  Jesus  Christ.  He  does  not  say  that  the  Word 
was  manifest  in  Christ.  He  says,  "  The  Word  became 
flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us,  and  we  beheld  His  glory  " 
(John  i.  14);  and  in  the  passage  already  quoted  from 
1  John,  the  Apostle  tells  us  that  it  is  the  Word  of 
whom  he  and  his  fellow-disciples  have  had  such  close 
corporeal  experience. 

IsTow  St.  John  asserts  certain  great  facts  concern- 
ing the  Word.  First,  He  was  pre -mundane.  The 
phrase  "in  the  beginning"  {Iv  apxrj),  a  manifest 
allusion  to  the  opening  words  of  Genesis,  carries  us 
back  to  the  commencement  of  all  things.  In  that 
distant  dawn  of  creation  the  Word  was  e2dsting  and 
present.  The  language  of  the  Evangelist  does  not 
affirm  absolute  eternity ;  but  on  the  other  hand  it 
drops  no  hint  as  to  a  beginning  of  the  Word.  At 
the  first  appearance  of  any  created  thing  the  Word  is 
found  to  be  in  existence.  Then  He  was  in  intimate 
relation  and  close  converse  with  God — "face  to  face 
with  God  "  {irpos  Tov  ®e6v).  Next,  it  is  stated  that 
He  was  Divine  in  nature.  He  "  was  God  " — true 
God,  not  merely  God-like.  The  term  "  God  "  is  here 
used  as  a  predicate  of  quality,  accentuating  the  nature 
of  its  object  rather  than  the  individual  personality, 
by  means  of  the  absence  of  the  article  (©eos,  not  6 
©eos).  St.  John  never  employs  the  term  "God"  of 
Christ  in  the  subject  of  a  sentence.  It  is  difficult  to 
grasp  his  exact  meaning.  But  probably  this  usage, 
combined  with  the  phrase  "the  Word  was  face  to 
face  with  God,"  is  intended  to  suggest  a  distinction 
of  personality.  Further,  the  Evangelist  declares  that 
the  Word  was  the  agent  of   creation.     AU   things 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT  241 

were  made  by  means  of  II im  (8t'  avTov).  Life 
was  inherent  in  Him.  Apparently  the  Evangelist  is 
litre  referring  to  the  life  of  nature,  as  he  is  follow- 
ing immediately  on  the  mention  of  creation  and 
preceding  his  allusion  to  the  revelation  in  prophecy. 
This  life  of  nature,  being  derived  from  the  Word, 
was  the  light  of  men,  although  its  shining  in  the 
darkness  of  the  world  was  not  comprehended,  so 
that  a  personal  manifestation  of  the  Word  became 
necessary. 

While  the  term  "  the  Word  "  is  thus  prominent  in 
the  prologue  of  the  Gospel,  elsewhere  St.  John  usually 
refers  to  the  Divine  nature  of  our  Lord  under  the 
title  "Son  of  God."  Jesus  is  ''the  Son  of  God"  (o 
vlos  Tov  ©€ov),  a  term  which  implies  exclusiveness. 

More  distinctly,  He  is  "  the  only  begotten  Son, 
which  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father"  (John  i.  18).* 
This  phrase  makes  it  quite  certain  that  the  idea  of 
Divine  Sonship  is  personal,  not  otHcial,  as  it  was 
among  the  Jews,  w^ho  called  the  Messiah  the  Son  of 
God  without  thereby  recognising  His  Divinity.  It 
also  distinguishes  the  Sonship  of  Christ  from  that  of 
Christians  or  men  generally  who  are  taught  to  regard 
God  as  their  Father.  Christ's  Sonship  is  the  only 
true,  perfect  sonship,  that  with  the  full  natme  of  the 
Father  present  in  the  Son.  Lastly,  the  concluding 
words  of  the  phrase,  being  in  the  present  tense, 
indicate  that  the  incarnation    did  not   involve   any 

*  Authorities  differ  on  this  text,  some  preferring  the  read- 
ing "  the  only  begotten  God,"  a  phrase  that  is  not  in  harmony 
with  New  Testament  usage.  The  expression  "only  begotten 
Son  "  is  found  in  John  iii,  16,  and  1  John  iv.  9. 

16 


242  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

separation  between  Christ  and  His  Father.  He 
always  enjoyed  the  consciousness  of  His  Father's 
love  and  nearness ;  He  did  not  lose  this  joy  when  He 
came  among  us.  In  entering  this  world  He  did  not 
leave  heaven:  He  brought  heaven  with  Him.  It  is 
in  accordance  with  this  conception  that  St.  John  does 
not  follow  St.  Paul  in  representing  the  incarnation  as 
a  humiliation ;  the  glory  of  Christ  is  not  diminished 
by  His  human  limitations,  because  this  glory  does 
not  consist  in  extercal  show  and  splendour  (ver.  14). 
It  is  the  glory  of  goodness,  and  the  goodness  of  the 
Son  is  not  less  but  more  apparent  in  His  earthly  life. 
Similarly  St.  John  quotes  words  of  our  Lord  which 
recognise  the  death  of  Christ  as  His  glorification 
(xiii.  31,  32). 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  St.  John  taught  the 
reality  of  our  Lord's  human  nature.  "  The  Word 
became  flesh"  —  i.e.,  human  (i.  14).  According  to 
1  John  the  denial  of  the  incarnation  is  the  very  spirit 
of  antichrist  (1  John  iv.  3).  St.  John  was  evidently 
contending  against  the  nascent  Docetism  of  his  day 
and  locality.  He  had  found  all  his  knowledge  of  God 
in  the  visible,  human  Christ;  and  to  endeavour  to 
dissipate  the  image  of  his  Lord  by  representing  it  to 
be  no  real  presence  was  intolerable.  It  has  been  said 
that  St.  John  only  contends  for  a  fleshly  body  in  which 
the  Logos  dwelt.  No  doubt  the  Apostle  is  so  com- 
plete a  Jew  that  he  cannot  think  of  a  perfect  human 
presence  excepting  in  terms  of  body.  The  flesh  is 
with  him,  as  with  other  Jews,  the  name  of  the  whole 
humanity,  because  to  people  who  think  in  the  concrete 
the  most  natural  way  of  representing  human  nature 


THE  NE}V  TESTAMENT  243 

is  by  means  of  its  outward  and  visible  properties. 
But  St.  John  does  not  deny  the  existence  of  a  human 
soul  in  Jesus.  His  narrative  contains  several  refer- 
ences to  it  (e.g.,  John  x.  11,  15,  17;  1  John  iii.  16), 
and  even  his  record  of  the  phrase  "  the  Son  of  Man  " 
implies  an  acceptance  of  the  reality  of  our  Lord's 
human  nature. 

It  is  the  teaching  of  St.  John  that  the  supreme 
purpose  of  the  advent  of  Christ  was  the  manifestation 
of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  overthrow  of  the  dominion 
of  Satan  and  the  deliverance  of  the  world  from  the 
ruin  of  sin.     Sin  is  lawlessness  (1  John  iii.  4),  not  as 
a  formal  transgression  of  the  Hebrew  Torah,  but  as 
a  wilful  chsregard  of  the  supreme  law  of  God  —  dis- 
obedience against  God  Himself.     The  de^^l  rules  the 
■world  in  its  sin  (v.   19).      St.   John    does   not   echo 
St.  Paul's  treatment  of  Satanic  influence  in  connecting 
it  with  physical  ills,  disease,   and  death,  so  that  it 
could  be  used  by  God  and  the  Chui-ch  as  an  agent  of 
chastisement.      The  other  aspect  of  Satanic  power, 
the  spiritual  dominion  of  wickedness — which,  indeed, 
is  recognised  by  St.  Paul — comes  out  strongly  in  the 
fourth    Evangelist.       He    sees    a    great    conflict    in 
pi-ogress   betw^een    light    and   darkness,    Christ    and 
Satan ;  and  the  whole  scheme  of  his  Gospel  seems  to 
be  arranged  so  as  to  present  this  to  us  in  a  series  of 
vivid,  dramatic  pictures.     It  has  even  l^een  suggested 
that  we  have  here  a  Gnostic  division  of  the  human 
race  into  two  essentially  opposite  classes — the  children 
of  God,  and  the  childien  of  the  devil.*    But,  although 

*  See  p.  49,  where  this  theory  is  considered  in  relation  to 
our  Lord's  teachings  recorded  by  St.  John. 


244  THE   THEOLOGY  OF 

some  such  division  is  recognised  in  the  present  con- 
dition of  mankind  (iii.  10),  the  Gnostic  fatalism  which 
would  make  it  necessary  and  eternal,  because  consti- 
tutional, almost  physiological,  is  directly  contrary 
to  St.  John's  ideas.  The  Apostle  pi-oclaims  God's 
love  to  the  world  {e.g.,  John  iii.  16),  and  makes 
it  clear  that  the  gospel  is  for  all  mankind  {e.g., 
1  John  iv.  14,  15).  His  is  no  gospel  confined  to 
a  favoured  race  or  order  of  men.  In  regard  to  the 
scope  of  redemption,  St.  John  is  as  much  a  universalist 
as  St.  Paul. 

While  redemption  is  regarded  negatively  as  deliver- 
ance from  condemnation  and  destruction  in  the 
cleansing  away  of  sin  and  the  abolition  of  the  dominion 
of  Satan,  positively  it  appears  as  the  gift  of  life.  The 
idea  of  life  in  Christ — set  before  us  in  contrast  to  the 
doom  of  destruction — is  not  to  be  understood  meta- 
phorically as  future  bliss ;  it  represents  the  real  gift 
of  such  energies  and  powers  as  are  comprehended  in 
the  notion  of  actual  vitality.  This  biological  concep- 
tion of  salvation  is  a  distinctive  feature  of  Johannine 
theology,  which  is  thereby  strongly  differentiated  in 
form  from  the  forensic  theology  of  St.  Paul — in  foi-m, 
but  not  in  essence,  since  the  same  idea  is  also  found 
in  Pauline  teaching  side  by  side  with  the  legal  con- 
ceptions of  justification,  and  without  any  contradiction 
{e.g.,  Eom.  vi.  23).  In  St.  John  this  is  much  more 
emphatic  and  characteristic.  Accordingly  the  reception 
of  the  blessings  of  salvation  is  the  result  of  the  be- 
getting of  a  new  life  in  us  by  God.  The  Christian  is 
"  begotten  of  God  "  (1  John  v.  1,  18) ;  and  Christians 
are  in  an  especial  sense  "  children  of  God,"  who  are 


THE   N^EW  TESTAMENT  245 

growing  into  the  likeness  of  Christ  (iii.  2,  3),  con- 
tinuous union  with  whom  keeps  His  people  from  sin. 
Thus  St.  John  says,  "  Whosoever  abideth  in  Him 
sinneth  not"  (ver.  6).  This  cannot  be  affirmed  ab- 
solutely of  our  present  state,  since  the  Apostle  has 
just  before  said,  "  If  we  say  that  we  have  no  sin,  we 
deceive  ourselves,  and  the  truth  is  not  in  us  "  (i.  8). 
It  must  mean,  then,  that  just  in  proportion  as  we 
abide  in  Christ  are  we  free  from  sin. 

Now  St.  John  is  most  clear  and  emphatic  in  the 
statement  that  these  vast  results  are  brought  about 
by  God  out  of  pure  love  for  the  world.  Or,  if  more 
may  be  said,  this  will  only  go  to  show  how  completely 
God  wills  the  work  of  redemption.  Thus  so  far  is 
St.  John  from  hinting  at  the  existence  of  any  discord 
among  the  Divine  attributes,  justice  opposed  to  mercy, 
etc.,  that  he  even  brings  in  the  faithfulness  and 
righteousness  of  God  as  grounds  on  which  He  forgives 
the  penitent,  saying,  "If  we  confess  our  sins.  He  is 
faithful  and  righteous  to  forgive  us  our  sins,  and  to 
cleanse  us  from  all  unrighteousness  "  (ver.  9). 

St.  John  agrees  with  the  universal  testimony  of  the 
Apostles  that  this  Divine  work  is  carried  out  by  Jesus 
Christ.  Because  God  loved  the  world  and  desired  to 
save  it  from  ruin.  He  sent  His  Son  into  the  world. 
Thus  the  incarnation  is  attributed  to  the  saving 
purpose  of  God.  With  the  Apostle  this  is  essential. 
The  denial  of  the  incarnation  is  fatal.  Nevertheless, 
St.  John  is  not  satisfied  to  rest  on  this  fact  alone, 
sublimely  beneficent  as  it  is.  He  carries  us  on  to  the 
death  of  Christ,  saying,  "The  blood  of  Jesus  His  Son 
cleanseth  us  from  all  sin  "  (ver.  7).     The  association  of 


246  THE  THEOLOGY  OF 

the  two  words  "  blood"  ai^d  •'  cleanseth  "  makes  it  clear 
that  the  Apostle  has  a  sacrificial  idea  in  his  mind. 
He  must  therefore  bs  thinking  of  the  blood  shed  in 
death  which  purifies  from  the  stain  of  sin  by  its 
sacrificial  eflicacy.  He  does  not  say  how  this  can  be. 
It  is  enough  that  he  has  the  analogy  of  Hebrew 
ritual  in  his  mind  to  fall  back  upon,  although  he 
makes  no  direct  allusion  to  it.  Similarly  he  teaches 
that  the  life-consecration  of  our  Lord,  symbolised 
by  His  baptism,  would  not  be  sufiicient  without  His 
death,  for  He  "  came  by  water  and  blood  .  .  .  not 
with  the  Avater  only,  but  with  the  water  and  with 
the  blood  "  (v.  6). 

It  is  quite  in  accordance  with  these  statements 
concerning  the  process  that  the  result  should  be  called 
a  "  propitiation "  (lAacr/xos).  Thus  St.  John  writes, 
"  He  is  the  projiitiation  for  our  sins ;  and  not  for  ours 
only,  but  also  for  the  whole  world  "  (ii.  2) ;  and  again, 
*'  God  sent  His  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for  our 
sins  "  (iv.  10).  But  when  we  recollect  the  Apostle's 
reiterated  assertion  of  God's  love  for  the  world,  arid 
observe  that  the  second  of  these  references  to  pro- 
pitiation is  actually  prefaced  by  the  mention  of  the 
Divine  love  in  the  words  "Not  that  we  loved  God, 
but  that  He  loved  us,  and  sent  His  Son,"  etc.,  show- 
ing that  the  immediate  cause  of  the  propitiation  was 
this  love  of  God,  we  must  see  that  St.  John  is  at  the 
very  antipodes  of  the  heathenish  position,  according 
to  which  the  animosity  of  an  unfriendly  divinity  is 
allayed  by  the  presentation  of  a  coveted  sacrifice. 
Nothing  of  the  kind  can  be  thought  of.  Then  the 
Apostle  must  be  contemplating   the   propitiation  in 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  247 

some  other  aspects.  What  is  this  1  Although  clearly 
it  is  not  to  move  God  to  be  kindly  disposed,  seeing 
that  God  Himself  provides  it  simply  because  He  is 
already  moved  by  love,  still  the  sin  needs  to  be 
cleansed,  and  the  propitiation  is  to  effect  this  end^ 
Perhaps,  then,  we  might  say  that  it  comes  nearer 
the  idea  of  an  expiation.  It  is  to  do  away  with  the 
injurious  effects  of  sin,  and  especially  the  guilt, 
which,  while  it  is  not  blotted  out,  acts  as  an  effectual 
hindrance  to  God's  good  intention,  neutralising  His 
grace.  Even  after  this  great  propitiation  in  the 
blood  of  Christ  has  been  effected,  there  is  still  a 
further  work  for  our  Lord  to  do  in  delivering  us 
from  the  ruin  of  sin.  He  is  our  Advocate  {irapaKX-qTo^) 
with  the  Father,  interceding  for  us.  Again,  it  is 
difficult  for  us  to  see  what  room  there  is  for  this 
advocacy  and  intercession,  seeing  that  God  is  already 
most  desirous  to  forgive  and  save.  But  we  must 
understand  that  the  result  of  the  work  of  Christ  is 
the  same  as  that  of  a  persuading  intercession ;  it 
is  needed  in  order  that  we  may  be  set  right  with 
God.  That  work  our  Lord  is  doing  now.  It  is  a 
continuous  intercession  carried  on  by  the  exalted 
Christ — a  truth  also  expressed  by  St.  Paul,  {e.g.^ 
Rom.  viii.  34)  and  in  Hebrews  (vii.  25).  Finally, 
while  the  ble&sings  of  the  saving  work  of  Christ 
are  free  to  all  mankind  and  designed  for  the  benefit 
of  the  whole  world,  they  can  only  be  received  on 
certain  conditions.  First,  there  must  be  confession 
of  sin,  if  sin  is  to  be  forgiven  (1  John  i.  9).  Then  we 
must  have  faith  in  Christ,  if  wo  would  receive  the  life 
of  Christ.     Faith  is  represented  by  St.  John  on  its 


248     THEOLOGY  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

receptive  side.  It  is  not  the  reception  of  an  idea, 
however,  but  the  opening  up  of  the  soul  for  Christ 
to  come  in ;  so  that  "  he  that  hath  the  Son  hath 
the  life"  (v.  12). 


33-^1. 


Date  Due 


A    "r'A 


^ 


^^ 


1^ 


M- 


